Preamble

The house met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

HOURS OF WORK.

Miss WARD: 1.
asked the Minister of Labour whether any substantial progress has been made with employers' organisations as to the possibility of reducing hours of work in industry

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Oliver Stanley): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for King's Norton (Major Thomas) on the 21st February, of which I am sending her a copy.

Miss WARD: Can my right hon. Friend give us any information as to the branches of industries represented by owners which he has consulted, so that we may have a little more information of the lines he is taking?

Mr. STANLEY: I am afraid that I cannot for the moment.

Mr. MANDER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say which is the first industry which will be dealt with?

Mr. STANLEY: If my hon. Friend will look at the reply to which I have referred the hon. Lady, he will see that I mentioned certain communications and until I have received answers to them I prefer not to add anything.

JUVENILE INSTRUCTION CENTRES.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: 2.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of young persons attending juvenile instruction centres on the latest convenient date?

Mr. STANLEY: During the week ended 6th February, 32,704 boys and girls attended junior instruction centres and classes. The average daily attendance was 27,027. In addition during the month
ended 23rd January, 1935, there was an average daily attendance of 2,689 boys and girls at authorised courses other than juvenile instruction centres and classes.

Viscountess ASTOR: Will my right hon. Friend do all he can to refute the charge which is being made in certain quarters that the Government are not going ahead very successfully with juvenile centres?

Mr. STANLEY: I am glad to be able to say that we are pressing on with the utmost speed. There are, of course, many technical difficulties in the way, but the figures I have read show a marked increase on a year ago.

Mr. LAWSON: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman can protect other people from misrepresentation?

Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON: Could not the right hon. Gentleman analyse the figures of the numbers of juveniles to show what a high proportion of available juveniles are in instructional centres?

Mr. STANLEY: I will consider that suggestion.

STATISTICS.

Mr. MAINWARING: 3.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed men at each of the Exchanges, Ferndale, Porth, Tonypandy and Treorchy, that have passed out of insurance on attaining the age of 65 years, separately for each year from 1926 to 1934, inclusive; and how many did so after, respectively, one or more years of continuous unemployment?

Mr. STANLEY: I regret that statistics giving the information desired are not available.

GLOVE INDUSTRY.

Mr. CAPORN: 5.
asked the Minister of Labour the smallest number of persons registered for employment in the glove industry recorded as unemployed during any part of 1934, and the average monthly number so recorded during the said year?

Mr. STANLEY: I regret that as the glove industry is not separately classified in the statistics of insured persons, I am unable to give the information desired.

BIRMINGHAM COURT OF REFEREES.

Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE: 6.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the notices giving the decision of the court of referees in Birmingham are not signed by the chairman, but that a rubber stamp is used and whether, seeing that this practice is liable to abuse, he will issue instructions that, in future, decisions of the court shall bear the signature of the chairman adjudicating?

Mr. STANLEY: The original record of the proceedings of a court of referees is, or should be, signed or initialled by the chairman and a copy is sent in due course to the claimant. I think, however, that my hon. Friend may be referring to a preliminary notice of the decision which is usually handed to the claimant immediately after the hearing; it is the common practice for these to be stamped with a facsimile signature and I do not think this is open to serious objection.

HOSIERY TRADE.

Mr. CHARLES BROWN: 9.
asked the Minister of Labour the numbers of unemployed hosiery workers in Sutton-in-Ashfield and Mansfield in January, 1933, 1934, and 1935, respectively, giving separate figures for men and women?

Mr. STANLEY: As the reply includes a table of figures, I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Insured persons, aged 16–64, in the hosiery industry classification recorded as unemployed at Sutton-in-Ashfield and Mansfield Employment Exchanges.


—
23rd January, 1933.
22nd January, 1934.
28th January, 1935.


Sutton-in-Ashfield.





Men aged 18–64
181
107
126


Women aged 18–64
365
164
344


Total (including juveniles aged 16 and 17)
596
289
522


Mansfield.





Men aged 18–64
31
38
67


Women aged 18–64
71
66
105


Total (including juveniles aged 16 and 17)
119
114
182

The greater part of the increase at 28th January, 1935, as compared with 22nd January, 1934, was among the temporarily stopped.

AGRICULTURAL WORKERS.

Mr. T. SMITH: 8.
asked the Minister of Labour whether this House may expect the early introduction of the Bill to extend unemployment insurance to agricultural workers?

Mr. BROWN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the considerable increase of unemployment in the hosiery industry, and do the Government intend to do anything to prevent the importation into this country of cheap hosiery made by sweated labour?

Mr. STANLEY: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will be glad to note a new accession to the ranks of his supporters.

Mr. WEST: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Brown) asks for prohibition, not an increase of tariff?

Mr. STANLEY: I realise now that the accession is an even more important one.

Mr. CAPORN: Can my right hon. Friend induce British ladies to wear English made stockings and so help to find employment for a large number of people?

Mr. STANLEY: The hon. Gentleman might start by persuading the Noble Lady in front of him.

Viscountess ASTOR: May I—

Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Burnett.

Viscountess ASTOR: My honour is at stake. How does he know?

Following is the statement:

Mr. STANLEY: I cannot at present add anything to the answer I gave the hon. Member on this subject on 28th January.

Mr. SMITH: Can we have an assurance, in view of the number of agricul-
tural workers out of employment, that this Bill will be before the House before Easter?

Mr. STANLEY: I can add nothing to my statement at present. The hon. Gentleman will realise that since the 28th January there have been certain events, the reactions of which have to be considered.

Mr. OSWALD LEWIS: Will my right hon. Friend, in introducing any legislation of this kind, consider the advantage of starting operations in the spring rather than in the autumn in order to give the men six months in which they can qualify for benefit?

Mr. STANLEY: I quite agree with that point.

UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 29.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the Kidsgrove Public Assistance Committee make a practice of refusing relief to single men and that men in that district who have been struck off unemployment benefit have no recourse except to the Poor Law; and whether he will communicate with the Stafford County Council in order that such persons shall not suffer unduly owing to the postponing of the Unemployment Assistance Act?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): I am making inquiries and will communicate with the right hon. Member.

Mr. HUTCHISON: 31.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will consider placing in the Library of the House the public assistance scales of relief for the able-bodied unemployed which were adopted by the 20 largest towns of the country just prior to the work being taken over by the Unemployment Assistance Board, so that it may be possible to draw comparisons between what is being done now and what was superseded?

Sir H. YOUNG: Though public assistance authorities are not required to report their scales of relief to me, I have of course considerable information available as to actual scales in force. I fear, however, that publication of such scales would be calculated rather to mislead than to inform since, to obtain a correct view of the situation, the method of administration of a scale needs to be ascertained as well as the scale itself.

Mr. THORNE: 39.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now in a position to make a statement as to the supplementary grants that he intends paying to the various local authorities, and as to the amount that each local authority will receive, in consequence of the Unemployment Assistance Board not being able to take over the able-bodied unemployed on 1st March, 1935?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I am not yet in a position to add to the reply given to a similar question by the hon. Member on the 25th February.

Mr. THORNE: If I put a similar question down for one of the days next week, does the right hon. Gentleman think that he will be in a position to make a definite statement?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir, I should think so.

Miss WARD: 40.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now in a position to inform the House of the estimated cost to local authorities of public assistance from 1st October to 31st March to those persons who will come under Part II of the Unemployment Insurance Act on the appointed day, the figure to relate to the whole country, the North-East coast, and the Northumberland County Council, respectively?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I regret that the information for which my hon. Friend asks is not available.

Miss WARD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if it is quite a logical step to—

Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid the hon. Lady must not discuss logic.

HIS MAJESTY'S SILVER JUBILEE.

Mr. GRUNDY: 4.
asked the Minister of Labour whether it is proposed to make provision for the payment of unemployment insurance benefit in the case of part-time workers who will be affected by the cessation of work on Jubilee Day; and whether he is now in a position to state the amount of additional payment to be made to all unemployed persons?

Mr. STANLEY: I would refer the hon. Member to the replies given to the hon.
Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) on the 21st February, to the hon. Member for the Scotland Division (Mr. Logan) and the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) on the 26th February.

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR OFFICE (SHORTHAND TYPISTS).

Mr. BURNETT: 10.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he will state the number of British shorthand typists employed in a temporary capacity at the International Labour Office, Geneva, and the scale of salary paid.

Mr. STANLEY: I am making inquiries and will communicate with my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

Mr. BURNETT: Does not my right hon. Friend think that £440 a year for a shorthand typist with a speed of 140 words a minute, as advertised in the Press, is a considerable sum?

Mr. STANLEY: The hon. Gentleman seems to be anticipating my inquiry.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

MOTORING OFFENCES (PENALTIES).

Mr. WEST: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the prosecution of Mr. Joseph Cooper at Otley on the 26th of November for driving a motor van without clue care, and fatally injuring a cyclist who was using both a reflector and white enamelled mud-guards; whether he is aware that, despite police evidence of negligence and driving without a licence, only fines totalling 30s. 6d. were imposed; and whether, in view of the repeated occurrence of such cases, he will consider the desirability of increasing the penalties for that class of offence?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): My attention had already been drawn to this case and I have obtained particulars. After hearing the evidence the magistrates decided that they would not be justified in recording a conviction against Mr. Cooper for driving without due care and attention and they dismissed this charge on payment by him of the costs of the proceedings. I have no reason to think that the powers of the
courts are inadequate to deal with such offences. The manner in which these powers are exercised is a matter for the court concerned, having regard to the circumstances of the individual ease before them.

Mr. WEST: Does not the Home Secretary realise that more than 20 cyclists are being killed per week in Great Britain, and that a large number of these deaths are caused by a minority of motor speed merchants who callously drive to the danger of these people; and does the right hon. Gentleman consider that in this case, where speed has been proved, a fine is adequate punishment for killing a cyclist?

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: In view of the fact that there was the imposition of a fine in the form of costs, how could the magistrates have considered there was innocence in this matter? If the matter justified the imposition of a fine, how could such a fine be considered adequate?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The attention of magistrates has been drawn to the necessity of dealing with this kind of case effectively, and we have circularised them on two occasions. I am not prepared at the moment to take further action in that regard, and I think the kind of questions we have had to-day may call their attention to this matter.

Sir WILFRID SUGDEN: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that the time is now ripe when lay magistrates should be legally guided and in some way educated to administer the law?

Mr. WEST: 12.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to a case where the Ealing magistrates bound over for two years and disqualified from driving for five years a motorist who had borrowed a car without permission and without a licence, and killed a cyclist; whether he is aware that negligence was proved; and whether, in view of the frequency of such occurrences, he will consider taking steps to ensure that imprisonment follows in all such cases?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I have made enquiries and am informed that the defendant in this case was only 17 years old and that in view of his youth and good character and the fact that he was in custody for 14 days on remand, the
justices thought it inadvisable to pass a sentence of imprisonment. In cases of this kind disqualification is often the most effective penalty and the justices decided to disqualify this defendant from driving for a period of five years. It is of great importance that when serious road traffic offences are proved, adequately deterrent measures shall be taken by the courts, but I could not agree to any amendment of the law which would deprive the courts of their discretion to impose penalties appropriate to the circumstances of individual cases.

Mr. WEST: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider, in view of the fact that there is case after case of these innocent people being killed owing to the negligence of some other person, that there ought to be, not a fine, but imprisonment in every case?

Commander MARSDEN: Does not my right lion. Friend think that this and similar cases prove that some other offence should be laid down by the law so that where the killing of some person is involved there should be a greater penalty than the law now provides?

STREET OBSTRUCTION.

Mr. BURNETT: 14.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that streets near Bryanston Street, Oxford Street, W.1, are blocked by being used as storage places for motor cars and vans, and that motor vehicles are frequently parked on both sides of the one-way street, Old Quebec Street, leading into Oxford Street; the reason why the police authorities allow this area to be thus obstructed; and whether he will request the police to abate this nuisance and restore Old Quebec Street as a public highway for vehicular and pedestrian moving traffic?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am informed by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that police are specially posted to the 'streets in question in order to deal with the traffic and to prevent obstruction. During the last six months no less than 490 cases of obstruction were dealt with in Old Quebec Street, Bryanston Street and Great Cumberland Place alone. It is difficult, however, to keep this congested area entirely free from obstruction by standing vehicles, since the buildings in the vicinity include a large stores, a large hotel, and a large
block of flats, at all of which vehicles are continually loading and unloading goods, while a number of visitors arrive by car.

OMNIBUS SERVICES (ESSEX).

Mr. HUTCHISON: 68.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he will ascertain from the traffic commissioners if they are satisfied that the numbers of motor omnibuses in circulation on sanctioned routes in the rural districts of Essex are adequate; and whether he is aware that on occasions people have to walk many miles home, because the last omnibus of the day is crowded and cannot under the regulations carry any more passengers?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Hore-Belisha): The Traffic Commissioners are directed in weighing the various matters, to which they are required to have regard, to give particular consideration to the convenience of the travelling public in the rural areas and to the provision of services in those areas where transport facilities are at present wanting or inadequate. I am sure that they would consider any representations made to them. I will send a copy of my hon. Friend's question and this answer to the Traffic Commissioners concerned.

BUILT-UP AREAS (SPEED LIMIT).

Mr. JOEL: 69.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the introduction of the 30 miles per hour speed limit in built-up areas next month, he proposes to issue for the information of motorists a statement as to how this speed limit will be enforced?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I have been asked to reply. The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis proposes, in good time before the coming into operation of the speed limit, to issue a notice to the public through the Press and the British Broadcasting Corporation explaining the methods of enforcement which the police intend to adopt with a view to securing compliance with the law. I am suggesting to chief officers of police outside London that they should take similar steps to inform the public in their respective police districts. I am at present in consultation with my hon. Friend the Minister of Transport on the question whether any further measure of publicity is desirable.

EAST LONDON (FACILITIES).

Major NATHAN: 71.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he will state the present position as to the improvement of travelling facilities from Liverpool Street, via Bethnal Green, to Romford and beyond?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am informed by the London and North Eastern Railway Company that full particulars of the schemes recently under their consideration have been submitted to the Standing Joint Committee of the London Transport Board and the four main line companies. They have not yet come to any decision. The railway company assure me that in the meantime they are doing all that is in their power to maintain an efficient and punctual service. The stock is being progressively renewed and the new stock provided is of the most modern type.

Sir W. SUGDEN: Will the hon. Gentleman remember that the same position has been taken up by the railway company for the last seven years?

PEDESTRIAN CROSSING PLACES (BEACONS).

Sir GIFFORD FOX: 72.
asked the Minister of Transport what arrangements have been made to have the pedestrian crossing beacons painted at regular intervals of time; what is the estimated total cost of maintenance of those beacons now in position; and whether he is aware that many of them already are in such condition as to be almost invisible to motorists?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Local authorities are responsible for maintaining the beacons and have been asked to see that they are kept clean. The posts will be repainted periodically at a cost of a few 'shillings each per annum.

Sir G. FOX: Is the hon. Gentleman 'aware that many of these standards have not been cleaned since they were put up?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: If my hon. Friend requires my assistance in the matter, I shall be only too glad to give it, if he will indicate the particular area which he has in mind.

Captain CUNNINGHAM-REID: When all these beacons and these various signs are in position, will there be sufficient room left for the pedestrians?

MOTOR VEHICLES.

Mr. SUMMERSBY: 73.
asked the Minister of Transport. whether he has now inquired into the difficulty caused by the fact that particles of mud thrown long distances by the rear wheels of motor cars cause bad visibility and danger to motor cars following by fouling their wind-screens; and will he remove the danger by requiring the use of flaps to rear wings of motor cars to act as mud screens?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The manufacturers informed my predecessor that flaps had been tried but found ineffective. I am to-day addressing a further communication to them asking them whether they can report progress in their search for a means to abate this inconvenience and danger.

Captain STRICKLAND: Will that also apply to the editors and proprietors of certain organs of the popular Press.

Mr. PARKINSON: 75.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the large number of private cars on the road with various mechanical and other defects; and whether it is proposed to introduce legislation for the inspection of private cars?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: In 1933 the police dealt with 21,572 offences in connection with the equipment and maintenance of brakes on motor vehicles of all kinds. I am not at the moment proposing to introduce further legislation, but I am endeavouring to devise a scheme under which my present powers may be more effectively exercised.

MOTOR DRIVERS (ALCOHOL).

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: 74.
asked the Minister of Transport what stage has been reached in his communications with the British Medical Association as to the connection between the consumption of alcoholic liquor by motor drivers and public safety an the roads; and whether his communications with the association have taken the form of specific questions?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I have asked the British Medical Association to let me have any observations that they may be able to make on this subject in the light of the existing knowledge and experience of the medical profession and have had their assurance that the
matter will be dealt with with the least possible delay. In fact a special Sub-Committee of the British Medical Association is holding its first meeting to-day. I am also in communication with the Medical Research Council.

Mr. FOOT: Do I understand that the meeting to which the hon. Gentleman refers is a meeting relating to this matter.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Yes, Sir.

LONDON (NORTH TO WEST ROAD TRAFFIC).

Mr. REA: 76.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the scheme published some years ago for the provision of a through north-to-west traffic way by the prolongation of Conduit Street to Berkeley Square; and whether the forthcoming opening of the extension of Curzon Street into Berkeley Square provides an opportunity for creating such a thoroughfare at a reasonable cost in anticipation of the erection of new buildings on the site?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: My attention has not been drawn to the particular scheme to which the hon. Member refers, but I am prepared to give immediate consideration to any such scheme if it be submitted to me by the responsible highway authority.

ACCIDENTS (PEDAL CYCLISTS.

Mr. BANFIELD: 77.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the resentment felt by the large body of pedal cyclists, numbering some 10 millions, against the restrictions imposed upon their use of the roads by recent regulations; and whether he will give an assurance that there is no intention of making the use of cycle paths compulsory upon pedal cyclists or further restricting the exercises of this law-abiding section of the community?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I have to inform the House that nearly a fifth of those killed on the roads are pedal cyclists and a quarter of those injured on the roads are pedal cyclists. I have also to inform the House that the increase in the number of pedal cyclists killed in 1933 as compared with 1928 was 96 per cent., and the increase in the number of pedal cyclists injured 100 per cent., whereas the corresponding figures for pedestrains were only 8 per cent. and 16 per cent.
respectively. Indeed, of the total in- crease in the number of persons killed in the last year as compared with the first, the deaths of pedal cyclists accounted for 62 per cent. and the injuries for 54 per cent. The House will therefore appreciate that pedal cyclists constitute a major part of the problem of road accidents, and I am confident, in view of the facts, that the House will sustain me in taking all measures that may be practicable to circumscribe the present perils, particularly when such measures add to the convenience of the pedal cyclists themselves.

Lieut. - Colonel CHARLES Mac- ANDREW: Does not my hon. Friend think that until it is made compulsory for cyclists to carry rear lights these enormous fatalities must continue, as motorists cannot see the cyclists before they pass them at night?

Mr. WEST: Is the Minister aware that in thousands of cases when cyclists have been killed they have had rear lights, and does not he also consider that it would be far more useful to segregate the speed merchants than the harmless cyclists on the road?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: This question, of course, has nothing to do with rear lights, but, if cyclists were provided with their own tracks, it would have the effect of segregating motorists also.

Captain CUNNINGHAM-REID: Have not these cycling paths been very satisfactory in many countries, including Denmark, Sweden and Holland?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: indicated assent.

Viscountess ASTOR: Will not the Minister point out that it is not a question of speed merchants and that sometimes cars are going quite slowly when they kill these cyclists?

Sir W. SUGDEN: Will my hon. Friend take knowledge of the specialists who have organised the cyclists of this country and have a greater knowledge of the application of the wheel than any Department in his own office or even the Minister himself?

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.

Mr. TINKER: 13.
asked the Home Secretary how many cases in 1933 and in 1934 were submitted to the medical
referees under Section 19 of the Workmen's Compensation Act; and how many of them belonged to the mining industry?

Sir J. GILMOUR: There were 4,334 such cases altogether for Great Britain in 1933. I regret that the number for 1934 is not yet available, and that no separate figures can be given for the mining industry.

Mr. TINKER: Would it be possible for the right hon. Gentleman; to get separate figures for the mining industry, because I believe they are the largest?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am prepared to look into it, but I cannot say whether that will be possible.

SUICIDES

Mrs. TATE: 15.
asked the Home Secretary whether he will state the number of suicides in Great Britain for the years 1932, 1933 and 1934 respectively?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to a question by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) on the 4th February.

Mrs. TATE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of taking steps to prevent the publication in the Press of the details of cases of suicide, and last letters left by suicides, except in cases where a coroner thinks it would be in the public interest that such details should be published?

Sir J. GILMOUR: All I can say is that we are having an inquiry into the whole question of coroners' courts, and I think this aspect of the matter might be dealt with then.

Mr. WEST: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some increase in the number of suicides is due to the harsh administration of the means test?

CORONERS: LAW AND PRACTICE (COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY).

Mr. TINKER: 16.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is now in a position to give the names of the persons who will constitute the committee of
inquiry into the subject of coroners' inquests and also the terms of reference?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Yes, Sir. The Right Honourable Lord Wright has consented to act as chairman of the committee and the remaining members are:

Sir Archibald Bodkin, K.C.B.,
Sir E. Farquhar Buzzard, Bt., K.C.V.O.,
Mr. Digby Cotes-Preedy, K.C.,
Sir Arthur Hazlerigg, Bt.,
Mr. George A. Isaacs,
Mr. W. Rutley Mowll, and
Mrs. Margaret Wintringham.

The terms of reference of the committee are:
to inquire into the law and practice relating to Coroners, and to report what changes, if any, are desirable and practicable.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

JUNIOR EVENING INSTITUTES.

Mr. WHITE: 17.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he can give the approximate number of those who left school at Christmas who are now attending juvenile education centres?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotham): I presume that by the phrase "juvenile education centres" the hon. Member means junior evening institutes. I regret that there is no information available which would enable me to answer this question.

SCHOOL-LEAVING AGE.

Mr. WHITE: 18.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education to what extent children who would normally have left school at Christmas on attaining the age of 14 have remained at school?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I regret that the board's statistics are not compiled in a form which would enable me to answer this question.

Mr. WHITE: In the absence of definite figures, could my hon. Friend say whether the tendency for children to remain at school beyond the age of 14 is increasing?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I must have notice of that question.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the question of instructing local authorities to send out a circular to the parents of children who reach the school-leaving age pointing out the advantage of allowing them to continue their education and the facilities which are available?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I think it is a fairly common practice for local authorities to do so.

Viscountess ASTOR: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House the difference made to juvenile unemployment when local authorities have raised the school-leaving age?

Sir FRANK SANDERSON: 20.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education the school-leaving age in the State schools of Germany, France, Belgium, Norway, Sweden and Denmark?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: Attendance at school is compulsory until 13 in France, until 14 in Germany, Belgium Sweden and Denmark, and until 15 in Norway.

SUPPLY OF BOOTS (GLAMORGANSHIRE).

Sir WILLIAM JENKINS: 19.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he will give an assurance that money spent by the Glamorgan Education Authority in supplying a pair of boots to every necessitous child in the elementary schools on the King's Jubilee, will rank for grant purposes, or whether the Board will make a grant for any other purpose that would assist necessitous children to join in the celebrations?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: If reasonable expenditure of the kind proposed is incurred by local education authorities in connection with the celebrations of the King's Jubiliee and is passed by the district auditor, the board will be prepared to recognise it for grant under Article 2 (b) of their Grant Regulations No. 1. It should, however, be understood that such recognition would be given in pursuance of the general sanction of the Minister of Health to expenditure by local authorities on the. Jubilee celebrations and would not affect the board's view that the provision of boots for necessitous children is in normal circumstances outside the powers of local education authorities.

RESERVOIRS (RATING).

Mr. GLOSSOP: 21.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the provisions of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, as applying to reservoirs, result in financial hardship to urban district councils, and that the Saddle-worth Urban District Council, at a meeting on 4th February, have refused to pay the West Riding County Council precept due under Section 9 (2c) of the Rating and Valuation Act; and whether he is prepared to call a conference of all urban district councils who have reservoirs in their areas?

Sir H. YOUNG: As I stated in reply to the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Mallalieu) on the 14th February, the position could not be altered without legislation, and on this I can make no promise at the present time. I have already been in communication with the Associations of Urban District Councils and Rural District Councils, both of whom are concerned, and who hold different views.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

ICE CREAM.

Mr. HUTCHISON: 22.
asked the Minister of Health whether his Department has considered the desirability of establishing a compulsory legal standard for ice cream; and, if so, with what result?

Sir H. YOUNG: This matter could not be dealt with without further legislation. The general question of standards for articles of food has been under consideration in connection with the report of the Departmental Committee on the composition and description of food, but I cannot make any statement at present as to the introduction of legislation.

Viscountess ASTOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that as ice cream is eaten by so many children it really is important, from the State point of view, that it should have a certain degree of purity?

Mr. GLOSSOP: Does not my right hon. Friend think that the introduction of a compulsory legal standard for cream would help to relieve the surplus milk market?

Sir H. YOUNG: That is a matter for the Ministry of Agriculture.

INFANT MORTALITY.

Sir W. JENKINS: 23.
asked the Minister of Health what is the rate of infant mortality per 1,000 births in each county in Wales for the years 1931, 1932, 1933, and 1934, giving each county separately; and what is the average for the whole country, England and Wales?

Sir H. YOUNG: As regards the figures for 1933 and previous years, I would refer the hon. Member to Tables 10 and 17 of the Registrar-General's Annual Statistical Review—Tables, Part I. The county figures for 1934 are not as yet available, but the provisional rate for England and Wales in that year is 59 per 1,000 live births.

Mr. WEST: May I ask whether, if there is abnormal infant mortality in any area, it is the practice of the Department to take action in the matter?

Sir H. YOUNG: The hon. Member may be assured that this is so.

MATERNITY AND CHILD WELFARE.

Mr. DENMAN: 24.
asked the Minister of Health what arrangements are being made under the Maternity and Child Welfare Act for the supply of free milk in Monmouthshire; and whether it is possible for all necessitous women to obtain milk for themselves during pregnancy or lactation, or for their infants if this is needed on medical grounds?

Sir H. YOUNG: According to my latest information the arrangements made by the county council are such that milk required on medical grounds can be obtained free for all necessitous women during pregnancy and lactation and for their children under five years of age.

DEATH OF MRS. M. TAYLOR, MANCHESTER.

Mr. DENMAN: 25.
asked the Minister of Health what action has been taken by the Manchester Corporation on the report of the commissioners on the inquiry into the death of Mrs. Molly Taylor and its surrounding circumstances?

Sir H. YOUNG: I have not yet received this information from the city council. I will inform my hon. Friend of the result of communication with them.

MATERNAL MORTALITY.

Captain LODER: 26.
asked the Minister of Health whether the investigators whom
he is sending into the areas where the rate of maternal mortality is abnormally high have started their investigations; and how soon some information will be available on the results of the investigations into the death rates in these particular areas?

Sir H. YOUNG: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, my hon. and gallant Friend will appreciate that these investigations are concerned with problems that are both difficult and complicated and will of necessity occupy some time. I am unable at present to say when the reports will be available.

VOLUNTARY HOSPITALS.

Mr. MANDER: 27.
asked the Minister of Health what powers of oversight he exercises in connection with voluntary hospitals?

Sir H. YOUNG: I have no general statutory power of supervision and inspection in relation to voluntary hospitals.

Mr. MANDER: Is it the practice to make an inquiry when the circumstances seem to require it?

Sir H. YOUNG: The hon. Member will see from my answer that I have no such general powers of inquiry.

MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS' UNION.

Captain CUNNINGHAM - REID: 30.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the Medical Practitioners' Union is circularising local authorities. requesting them to consider the recognition of the union and the insertion of advertisements for vacant medical appointments in the official weekly publication of the union; and whether he will circularise local authorities pointing out to them that the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act, 1927, forbids any local or public authority to make it a condition of the employment of any person that he shall, or shall not, be a member of a trade union, or to impose any conditions putting employés who are, or who are not, members of a trade union in any respect under any disadvantage as compared with other employés?

Sir H. YOUNG: I have seen statements in the Press to the effect of the first part of the question. As regards the second
part, local authorities are well aware of the statutory provisions to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers and I do not think it is necessary to circularise them specially on this matter.

DRAINAGE AND WATER SUPPLY.

Major HILLS: 32.
asked the Minister of Health whether, seeing that a large sum will shortly be spent on drainage and possibly a large sum also on water supply, he is arranging that these two questions should be considered together, since it is possible that some form of water storage will provide the solution of both problems and save a double expenditure?

Sir H. YOUNG: I will consider the matter further with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

Mr. GUY: 28.
asked the Minister of Health the total number of unmarried women over the age of 55 who are insured under the National Insurance Acts as at the last convenient date?

Sir H. YOUNG: I assume that the question refers to spinsters. If so, the number is approximately 175,000.

CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.

Miss WARD: 33.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has yet received the report of the Government actuary on the financial operations of the Contributory Pensions Act?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer is in the negative.

Miss WARD: Can my right hon. Friend tell me when he is likely to receive the report?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid I am not in a position to make any statement about it.

FISHING INDUSTRY.

Mr. MARCUS SAMUEL: 35.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the condition of the herring-fishing industry, he will consider reducing the high rate of duty at present imposed upon cork floats coming into this country
which are used in the manufacture of fishing nets, and which is increasing the cost of deep-sea fishing equipment?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Import Duties Advisory Committee have already considered an application for reducing the duty on these goods, and announced in August last that they had decided not to make any recommendation. It is, of course, open to the industry to make further representations to the committee from the point of view of the fishing industry, if they so desire.

CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES.

Mr. SAMUEL: 36.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the advisability of taking steps to acquire by compulsory purchase the share capital of the co-operative societies upon which dividends at the rate of 5 per cent. per annum are now allowed to be paid in exchange for bonds bearing a fixed interest of 3½per cent. per annum, for the purpose of creating a new source of revenue and at the same time controlling profiteering and price levels?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. Friend's proposal would require legislation, which I do not see my way to propose to the House.

Mr. SAMUEL: May I ask whether the Government take that view because the majority of the accounts and balance sheets of trading or commercial services conducted by the Government show losses?

STERLING EXCHANGE.

Mr. DAVID MASON: 37.
asked the Chancellor, of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the high price of gold bullion, indicating a continuous fall in the value of the paper pound; and whether His Majesty's Government propose to take any steps to arrest a further fall?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am aware of recent movements in the external or gold value of sterling, which is, of course, a different thing from its internal purchasing power. In reply to the last part of the question, I cannot undertake to publish such information for reasons of public policy, which I have explained on several occasions.

Mr. MASON: Can the right hon. Gentleman hold out any hope of an early stabilisation of the pound?

Mr. CHAMBEALAIN: No, Sir.

Dr. ADDISON: Can the right hon. Gentleman mention any time when he can give the House of Commons an account of the operations of this fund?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not see any prospect of my doing so in the near future.

Dr. ADDISON: Am I to understand from that that the £350,000,000 made available will not be accounted for to Parliament at all?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is a matter which has already been decided by this House.

Mr. MASON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware of the gravity of the movements in the rate of exchange?

INCOME TAX (CHILDREN'S ALLOWANCES).

Major HILLS: 41.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, without anticipating the Budget statement, he can give an assurance that the reinstatement of children's allowances to the figure at which they stood in 1931 will not be overlooked?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My right hon. Friend may rest assured that the subject of his question will be taken into consideration together with all other relevant matters before the Budget statement is made.

BRAZIL (BRITISH INVESTORS).

Mr. BURNETT: 38.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the Brazilian Government is desirous of obtaining a loan; and will he make 't clear to the Brazilian trade delegation now in England that, apart from the embargo upon the public flotation of foreign loans in London, the placing here with loan houses at the present time of Brazilian obligations which could afterwards be negotiated privately among British investors would not be regarded with favour by His Majesty's Government?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no reason to suppose that the Brazilian Government are desirous of obtaining a loan in this country. Accordingly the second part of the question does not arise. If my hon. Friend's question has relation to any credit operation which may be agreed to in connection with the liquidation of outstanding trade debts due to the United Kingdom, I would add that discussions in regard to the liquidation of trade debts are still proceeding and I am not therefore in a position to make any statement on that subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

BARLEY (BREWERS' PURCHASES).

Mr. OSWALD LEWIS: 42.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will cause inquiry to be made from the brewers as to what quantity of homegrown barley was purchased by them for the manufacture of British beer for the years June, 1932, to June, 1933, and June, 1933, to June, 1934, respectively?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no power to require the production of the information desired, but I will inquire of the Brewers' Society whether they would be prepared voluntarily to supply me with such statistics as they have of the purchases of British barley by brewers in the years mentioned.

GOVERNMENT POLICY.

Mr. HARCOURT JOHNSTONE: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to abandon the present system of quotas and restrictions upon imports of foodstuffs into the United Kingdom and to substitute for it a system of tariffs upon agricultural produce with a preference to the Dominions, as foreshadowed in a speech made by the Secretary of State on Monday last in the presence of the High Commissioners for the Dominions?

The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): The Government have often stated that in their view quantitative regulation is not necessarily in all cases the most appropriate method of assisting the home agricultural industry. For example, the method adopted in the case of fruit and horticultural products has from the outset been that of import duties. As the
House has already been informed, the Government would prefer, in the case of meat, to follow broadly the precedent of the Wheat Act, and proceed on the lines indicated by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries in the House of Commons on 18th February. It is not possible to lay down a general rule, as the circumstances of each case are different.

Mr. JOHNSTONE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the speech of his colleague the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs did in fact purport to lay down a general rule and a general policy for the protection of agricultural produce, not merely for milk, fruit or butter, but a general line of agricultural policy?

Mr. BALDWIN: I read my right hon. Friend's after-luncheon speech, and I remember very well that he said he was going to get down to brass tacks. Brass tacks, in my view, in this case were meat.

Mr. JOHNSTONE: Is it to be assumed from the right hon. Gentleman's reply that in future no reliance is to be placed upon general statements of policy by the Secretary of State for the Dominions after lunch?

Mr. BALDWIN: I do not think that would be quite a fair inference from what I said.

Colonel ROPNER: 50.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will consider the desirability of issuing an explanatory memorandum with regard to the present agricultural policy of the Government as it affects particular products, and setting out as clearly as possible the nature of existing marketing schemes?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): I shall be happy to bear in mind my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion. Statements of the Government's policy regarding milk and livestock respectively were made in two White Papers (Cmd. 4519 and 4651) presented to Parliament last year, copies of which I am sending to my hon. and gallant Friend. A comprehensive statement of the nature of the existing marketing schemes will be found in the annual report under Section 10 of the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931, which
my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I hope to lay before Parliament shortly.

Mr. JOHN WILMOT: Will the Minister, in giving this information to the House, append to it a statement of the financial commitments and the effect on the price of the product?

Mr. ELLIOT: All the requirements which were laid down in the Act of 1931, which was passed by a Government supported by hon. Members on the other side of the House, will be scrupulously fulfilled.

CATTLE DISEASES.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: 47.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of the anxiety among breeders of Ayrshire cattle with regard to the continued importation into this country of cattle which are not subjected on landing to either the tuberculin test or the agglutination test for contagious abortion, and, without any guarantee that they are free from contagious mammitis; and whether he proposes to take any steps to deal with this matter?

Mr. ELLIOT: I have received representations, to the effect stated in the first part of the question, from the Ayrshire Cattle Herd Book Society and other Scottish societies, and I understand that the Scottish Agricultural Advisory Committee are now considering the whole matter. As at present advised, however, I doubt whether any useful purpose would be served by requiring the tests or guarantee suggested. Apart from the point that the absence of reaction to a single test would not necessarily indicate freedom from disease, there is no reason to believe that the diseases mentioned are more prevalent among imported cattle than in native stock in this country.

MILK.

Colonel ROPNER: 49.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the nature of the steps to be taken by the Milk Marketing Board during the current year to increase the consumption of liquid milk in this country?

Mr. ELLIOT: The main step taken by the Milk Marketing Board to increase the consumption of liquid milk in this country is the milk-in-schools scheme,
details of which were laid before the House in September last. A further step is the initiation of a scientifically controlled experiment in selected schools and approved centres designed to demonstrate the nutritional value of milk. I hope shortly to be in a position to give the House particulars of this interesting development. A third step which the Milk Marketing Board are contemplating is a general publicity campaign in favour of liquid milk consumption, which will take place in the early spring. Particulars of this campaign will also be laid before the House in due course.

Mr. de ROTHSCHILD: As regards milk for schools, is the Minister aware that, instead of Grade A T.T. liquid milk being provided, what is provided at the present time is pasteurised milk, in most cases old milk, manufactured by dairies, and is not the liquid milk which the children are supposed to get?

Mr. ELLIOT: Any milk for schools is supplied under the authority and responsibility of the medical officers of health concerned, and it would be quite wrong for me to cast any aspersions on the competence of those officers.

Mr. de ROTHSCHILD: Is the Minister aware that the circulars which the Ministry of Health and the Board of Education have issued to schools have asked them to 'use pasteurised milk without inspecting it; and is he aware that pasteurised milk is often milk that has been kept for several months and is not fresh milk, whereas the farmers are prepared to provide fresh milk for these schools?

Mr. ELLIOT: It is clear that such representations should be addressed to the county authorities and the education authorities concerned. It would, as I have said, be quite wrong for me to reflect upon the professional competence of the medical officers in question.

DISTRIBUTION.

M. Mr. ORR-EWING: 51.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what steps he is taking to carry out the recommendations appearing on pages 85 and 86 of the report of the reorganisation commission for fat stock, and page 150 of the report of the reorganisation commission for eggs and poultry, that immediate investigation should be made of the mechanism of
distribution, including a scientific analysis of demand for both product and service in selected food trades?

Mr. ELLIOT: In so far as the recommendations referred to by my hon. Friend relate to a census of distribution, I would refer him to the reply given yesterday by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones). On the broader question, I would add that the orange books on marketing which are being issued by the Ministry from time to time contain useful data with regard to the mechanism of distribution. The marketing boards are giving close attention to the demand side of their problem, while the field of distribution has been expressly brought within the purview of the recently appointed Milk Reorganisation Commission.

INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE.

Mr. H. JOHNSTONE: 43.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation to implement the recommendations of the report of the Committee on Industrial Insurance?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There is no possibility of time being found for legislation on this subject in the present Session of Parliament.

Mr. JOHNSTONE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that nearly a year ago the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said that legislation on this subject was under the most active consideration of the Government at that time, and does he not consider that the situation revealed by the report shows the urgency of doing something to check it?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir, it is quite true that the subject was under active consideration, but I very much regret that it is not possible, in consideration of the time at our disposal, to deal with the matter in the present Session.

Sir P. HARRIS: Could not this matter be dealt with as a non-controversial issue and sent to a Standing Committee?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not sure that the matter would be considered non-controversial.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

MOTOR CARS (IMPORTS).

Captain STRICKLAND: 44.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the percentage increase in the imports of foreign-manufactured private motor cars as between the years 1932, 1933 and 1934; what percentage increase there has been in those cars in the month of January, 1935, over January, 1932 and 1933; and whether he proposes to take any fresh steps to deal with this loss of potential employment to British workers?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The percentage increase in the numbers of private motor cars imported from foreign countries during the year 1933, as compared with the corresponding imports in 1932, was 19 per cent., and the corresponding increase in 1934 as compared with 1933 was 256 per cent. The percentage increases in the imports of these goods during the month of January, 1935, as compared with imports during January, 1932, and January, 1933, were 1,798 per cent. and 463 per cent. respectively. Though these figures appear large when expressed as percentages, it must be remembered that total imports are very small when compared with British production. In the year ended the 30th September, 1934, for instance, the total number of cars imported was 9,145, whereas the number of cars and chassis produced in the United Kingdom was 256,866. As regards the last part of the question, the import duty on motor cars, in common with other Budget duties, will come up for review before the Budget, but I would point out that this duty is already at the rate of 33½ per cent. ad valorem.

Captain STRICKLAND: Is the Chancellor satisfied that every step has been taken by the Government to meet this menace to the motor car trade, which is growing month by month and is throwing out of work a lot of people who might be engaged in the industry?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think it can be said that the import of foreign motor cars has yet reached a point where it is a menace to the production of British cars.

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: Does not the Chancellor of the Exchequer consider that this question and answer are a good
illustration of the great danger of the use of percentage figures in this controversy?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My answer is designed to bring out that point.

Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS: Is it not a fact that the majority of these 9,000 foreign motor cars were bought by miners?

TRAMP SHIPPING (SUBSIDY).

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: 52.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Tramp Shipping Committee responsible for the distribution of subsidies will have instructions only to give subsidies in respect of those ships on which wages are paid in accordance with the standard of the National Maritime Board and where a reasonable proportion of British officers and men are borne?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): The duties of the Tramp Shipping Subsidy Committee are defined in the British Shipping (Assistance) Act, 1935. The position as regards the specific matters to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers was fully explained during the debates on the Bill.

Mr. WEST: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that there are scores of shipowners who, under this Clause, will be given a subsidy although they are employing 20 per cent. and more of cheap coloured sailors?

Commander MARSDEN: Is it not a fact that, in the ships which are particularly interested in this subsidy, the percentage of British officers and men is very high indeed; and would the Parliamentary Secretary now give the figures for the benefit of the House?

Dr. BURGIN: The percentage of British officers and men is certainly very high, but what is much more important than that is that the Chairman of the British Tramp Shipping Subsidy Committee, in the circular of the 31st January, 1935, issued to shipowners in respect of this very matter, has called attention to the fact that a recommendation for the grant of a subsidy would not be forthcoming in the case of an owner who did not pay the National Maritime Board wages where applicable. The actual sentence is that the President of the Board
of Trade had intimated that he had been assured, from such consultations as he had had in conference, that a subsidy would not be granted in those circumstances. The matter has been fully ventilated, and the Tramp Shipping Subsidy Committee know their duty.

Dr. ADDISON: Is it not a fact that the scales of the National Maritime Board are not applicable when the seamen employed are not British seamen?

Dr. BURGIN: That, really, is quite another point.

Dr. ADDISON: No. The hon. Gentleman's answer just now contained the words "where applicable," and I ask him, in respect of those words, whether it is not a fact that the findings of the National Maritime Board are not applicable to the employment of seamen who are not British subjects?

Dr. BURGIN: It is quite clear that the National Maritime Board regulations do not apply to crews signed on outside this country.

Mr. WEST: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that 99 per cent. of these men are not British?

CANADA (WIRE ROPE DUTY).

Colonel GOODMAN: 53
asked the President of the Board of Trade, (1) whether he is aware of the proposal of the commissioner of tariffs, Ottawa, to amend tariff item 411A of the Canadian tariff by the elimination of wire rope from the provisions of the item, the effect of which will be to remove the rebate on wire rope imported from the United Kingdom and used for certain logging operations in Canada; and, as the importation into Canada of wire rope for logging is almost entirely confined to the United Kingdom, whether he proposes to make representations on the matter;
(2) whether, in view of the great increase in the quantities of lumber exported from British Columbia to the United Kingdom since 1929, he will, in the interests of reciprocal trade, make representations to the Canadian Government against the proposed amendment to the Canadian tariff respecting wire ropes exported from the United Kingdom and used for logging purposes;
(3) whether, when considering the protests of the Canadian Government regarding the Russian timber situation, he will have in mind the proposed amendment to the Canadian tariff, the effect of which will be to remove the rebate on wire ropes imported from the United Kingdom for certain logging purposes?

Lieut.-Colonel J. COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I have no official information regarding the proposal in question, but I am making inquiries and will communicate the result to my hon. and gallant Friend.

GLOVES (IMPORTS).

Mr. CAPORN: 56.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the imports of gloves, leather and fabric, increased from 1,100,000 dozen pairs in 1932 to over 1,600,000 dozen pairs in 1934; and whether he can give any estimate of the number of persons who might have been employed if the 1,600,000 dozen gloves, including the fabric in the case of fabric gloves, had been manufactured in this country?

Dr. BURGIN: The figures given by my hon. Friend in the first part of the question are substantially correct. As the imports of these commodities are of a varied character, the second part of the question could only be answered on the basis of arbitrary assumptions.

Mr. RADFORD: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that by far the greater part of the yarn from which these fabric gloves are made is made in Lancashire; and will he be very slow to do anything further to hamper Lancashire?

BUILDERS' WOODWORK (IMPORTS).

Mr. CAPORN: 57.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give particulars of the various articles included to the value of £1,164,332 under the heading Builders' Woodwork in the account relating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom for the year 1934?

Dr. BURGIN: Builders' woodwork is classified in the official import and export list under the headings of doors, hardwood flooring blocks, strips and sections, and other builders' woodwork. The last heading includes such goods as window and door frames, mantelpieces, staircases, picture rails, and gates.

Mr. CAPORN: As the use of these articles will be largely increased as a result of the Government's housing policy, will the Board of Trade take such steps as they can to see that they are made by British labour?

SPAIN (BRITISH MOTOR CARS).

Lieut.-Commander TUFNELL: 58.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Spanish Government have, without notice, suppressed the 35 per cent. rebate of custom duties hitherto given to British motor cars imported into Spain; and whether, in view of the hardship caused by this action to the British motor industry, he will take steps to secure the immediate imposition of a special duty on Spanish oranges, to continue until satisfactory arrangements have been reached with regard to the motor car tariff?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I am aware that the Spanish Government has cancelled the decree under which a 35 per cent. rebate of duty was granted to motor cars imported from France and the United Kingdom. No discrimination against this country is involved in this cancellation. The question of the treatment of United Kingdom cars in Spain will be borne in mind in connection with the commercial negotiations which are in contemplation with Spain.

RUSSIAN TIMBER.

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: 60.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he proposes to take to check the re-export of Russian timber to the United Kingdom through Finland, in view of the fact that Finnish imports of Russian sawn soft wood in 1934 exceeded by over 100 per cent. those of 1932, and the repeated comments of the Finnish Press on the re-export of this timber to Great Britain?

Dr. BURGIN: I would refer to the reply I gave on the 4th February to the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison).

Sir A. KNOX: In view of the figures I have given, will not the hon. Gentleman reconsider his reply?

Dr. BURGIN: This suggestion that Russian timber is improperly re-exported by Finland has been examined over and
over again, and particular inquiries have been made, as the result of which I gave the answer to which I have referred.

Viscountess ASTOR: Is it not true that shipping has improved since we have had a better understanding with Russia?

Dr. BURGIN: That is so.

Viscountess ASTOR: Tell the House, then.

Sir A. KNOX: 61.
asked the President of the Board of Trade why the Accounts for Trade and Navigation for 1934 issued by his Department show a total of 381,000 standards of timber shipped from Russia to the United Kingdom in 1934, whereas, in a letter of the 23rd January, 1934, the Canadian Government was informed that the maximum quantity of imported Russian timber would be 350,000 standards?

Dr. BURGIN: The contract between the White Sea Timber Trust and Timber Distributors, Limited, for 1934 provided for the importation of a maximum quantity of 350,000 standards of sawn soft wood. I understand that this quantity was exceeded by 4,595 standards or slightly more than 1 per cent.; the remainder of the 381,000 standards shown in the Trade and Navigation Accounts as "Sawn soft timber other than planed or dressed," consists of miscellaneous timber not covered by the contract.

TRADE UNION FUNDS.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: 46.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the fact that many trade unions have recently reported an increase in their funds as a result of successful speculation in stock exchange securities; and whether he will consider the desirability of introducing legislation to control such speculation on the part of trade unions?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Duff Cooper): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The second part does not therefore arise.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: If I give my hon. Friend actual information on this point, will he be prepared to consider it?

Mr. COOPER: indicated assent.

GENERAL THEATRE CORPORATION, LIMITED.

Mr. DORAN: 59.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has considered the communication sent to him by the hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. Doran) relative to the proposed reconstruction of General Theatre Corporation, Limited; and, in view of the consequent losses to the shareholders, whether he has any statement to make?

Dr. BURGIN: My right hon. Friend has received the particulars regarding a scheme of arrangement under Section 153 of the Companies Act, 1929, relating to General Theatre Corporation, Limited, which my hon. Friend has sent to him, but the matter is before the court, and he has no statement to make.

Mr. DORAN: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me on whose authority this company is being wound up?

Dr. BURGIN: I think the hon. Member has misunderstood me. It is not a question of winding up, but of a scheme for reconstruction under Section 153, and the matter is sub judice.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

FIRE-DAMP IGNITION (EXPERIMENTS).

Mr. DAVID DAVIES: 62.
asked the Secretary for Mines what experiments have been conducted by the Safety-in-Mines Research Board in connection with adiabatic compression ignition of firedamp; whether the results of such experiments have been published; and, if not, is it the intention of the board to publish them in the near future?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): Two principal series of experiments on the ignition of fire-damp air mixtures by adiabatic compression are being carried out by the Safety-in-Mines Research Board, the one series dealing with ignition by the sudden and simultaneous compression of a considerable volume of the mixture, and the other series dealing with the possibility of ignition by the rapid passage through the mixture of a compression-wave, such as is produced when an explosive is fired. An account of the first series of experiments was published in a paper read before the Midland Institute of Mining
Engineers on 7th February—I will send the hon. Member a copy. The second series of experiments is not yet completed.

Mr. DAVIES: In view of the importance of these experiments, it is not advisable that the public should know about them, possibly through a publication from the Safety-in-Mines Research Department?

Mr. BROWN: I will send the hon. Member a copy of Dr. Wheeler's admirable paper, and perhaps he will consult with me when he has read it.

Mr. LAWSON: For the information of the House, will the hon. Gentleman say whether we can take his reply as indicating that there is now a possibility of shot-firing being carried out without causing a flame?

Mr. BROWN: There is another question on that subject.

EXPLOSION, BILSTHORP.

Mr. D. DAVIES: 63.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether his attention has been directed to the report of the Bilsthorp inquiry in which the comissioner concludes that the explosion resulted from an ignition of fire-damp by the firing of a shot; and whether the experts of the Safety-in-Mines Research Department are of the opinion that the explosion was due to adiabatic compression of fire-damp?

Mr. E. BROWN: The answer to the first part of the question is "Yes," and to the second part that it is considered unlikely. So far, in the experimental work, no ignition has been obtained by the passage of compression waves through firedamp-air mixtures, and though ignition can be obtained experimentally by the sudden and simultaneous compression of a considerable volume of mixture, it is considered that the conditions necessary to produce ignition in this way are unlikely to occur in shot-firing practice.

GRESEORD COLLIERY.

Mr. ALED ROBERTS: 64.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he can make a statement as to the progress made in the special training of rescue workers to undertake recovery operations at Gresford Colliery; and when these operations are likely to be commenced?

Mr. E. BROWN: The necessary intensive training has progressed satisfactorily, and yesterday the seal at the top of one of the shafts was removed by a team of men working inside the airlock and wearing self-contained breathing apparatus. Further work to prepare for the descent of the shaft is now proceeding in a similar way and, though it is impossible to say definitely, it seems likely that a rescue team will make the first descent of the shaft in the course of next week. The work is difficult, and it is most important that it should be done quietly, with the utmost care and deliberation. I make an appeal, therefore, to the public and to the Press not to assemble about the colliery while the work is in progress, and otherwise to save those who are engaged in it from distracting influences. I give an assurance that as the work proceeds full information will be communicated to the Press for publication.

OIL EXTRACTION.

Mr. T. SMITH: 65.
asked the Secretary for Mines how many gallons of oil have been, produced from coal in the United Kingdom during each of the last three years and the total quantity of coal used thereby?

Mr. E. BROWN: As the answer involves a statistical statement, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. SMITH: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether he is satisfied with the progress which has been made in this direction?

Mr. BROWN: In regard to oil including benzole there has been a rise from 39,000,000 gallons to between 55,000,000 and 56,000,000 gallons.

Following is the answer:

No official information is available, but the following quantities of oil are estimated to have been produced from coal by various processes in the last three years:


Year.
Crude benzole and other spirit.
Creosote.





Million
Gallons.


1932
…
…
39
55


1933
…
…
49
65


1934
…
…
55/56
80

The figures for 1934 are provisional and subject to revision.

The tonnage of coal consumed in high and low temperature carbonisation processes from which the above products were obtained were:


1932
…
…
30.2 million tons.


1933
…
…
30.4 million tons.


1934
…
…
(Not yet available).

RAILWAY REQUIREMENTS (ELECTRIFICATION).

Mr. NORTH: 66.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he can give any estimate of the reduction in the quantity of coal required annually by the railway companies of this country if they were to electrify their main lines?

Mr. E. BROWN: The Committee on Main Line Electrification which reported in 1931 estimated that in the event of the electrification of the railways, the amount of coal required for the production of the necessary electricity would be about 3,650,000 tons. On the basis of present coal consumption by railway locomotives, this would represent a net reduction in coal consumption of rather more than 8 million tons.

ROYALTIES.

Mr. NORTH: 67.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is yet in a position, to state when it is proposed to introduce the measure to deal with coal-mining royalties?

Mr. E. BROWN: I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave on 12th February to a similar question by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Curry), of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy.

Mr. NORTH: Can the hon. Gentleman say when he will be able to make a further statement on this matter

Mr. BROWN: Not yet.

KENYA.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: 79.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it has been finally decided where the Kenya Native Land Trust Board will sit; if it is intended that Native lands shall continue to be vested in the board; and whether officers of the Kenya Government service are to be considered eligible for appointment to the board?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I would refer the hon. Member to the Summary of Conclusions of His Majesty's Government on the Kenya Land Commission's Report (Cmd. 4580) to which I am at present not in a position to add.

Sir R. HAMILTON: The right hon. Gentleman did not reply to the last part of the question as to the appointment of government officers on the board?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am afraid that I cannot make a statement yet, but when I am able to make a statement about the future constitution of the board I will do so.

TIN REGULATION SCHEME.

Major NATHAN: 80.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies who are members of the Tin Producers' Association; and what are the conditions of membership and the machinery of election?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The Tin Producers' Association Incorporated is registered under the Companies Act. The association is an unofficial body, and I do not think I could properly undertake to answer questions regarding its constitution or membership.

Major NATHAN: 81.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies on whose nomination and by whose appointment Sir John Campbell, Mr. Lowinger and Mr. Thomson are members of the Malay States delegation to the International Tin Committee, and Sir F. Baddeley, Sir John Campbell and Mr. Calder members of the Nigeria delegation?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Sir John Campbell, Mr. Thomson, Sir Frank Baddeley and Mr. Calder were appointed in 1931 as delegates of the Malay States and of Nigeria after consultation between Lord Passfield, the High Commissioner for the Malay States and the Governor of Nigeria. Mr. Lowinger was nominated by the High Commissioner for the Malay States to fill a vacancy which occurred in October, 1932.

Major NATHAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say by whom the appointment was made in the case of the gentlemen first mentioned by him?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I said that it was made after consultation between Lord Passfield, who was then Secretary of State in the Labour Government, the High Commissioner for the Malay States and the Governor of Nigeria.

Major NATHAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question and say by whom the appointments were made. I mean from whom the appointments emanated?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The respective Governments.

Major COLFOX: Can my right hon. Friend give the names of any hon Members of this House who may be speculating in tin at the present time?

Mr. WILMOT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these persons who are supposed to represent British Empire producers voted in favour of the tin buffer stock scheme against the mandate of those whom they are supposed to represent?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Persons appointed by Governments to act in an official capacity to exercise their best judgment ought to exercise their best judgment.

PALESTINE (FRUIT TRAFFIC).

Mr. JANNER: 82.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that, in consequence of the inadequate supply of closed goods wagons on the Palestine railways, exporters of citrus have recently been compelled to load their fruit in open wagons; and what steps are being taken to ensure an adequate supply of covered wagons before the next citrus exporting season, in view of the fact that there will be an increased crop to handle?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Attention was drawn to the shortage of covered wagons by a committee which was appointed early lasst year by the High Commissioner for Palestine to investigate traffic requirements. The committee recommended the provision of 100 additional covered wagons, inclusive of 40 already authorised for traffic in 1934–35, and the immediate purchase of these vehicles was approved.

STERLING EXCHANGE.

At end of Questions:

Mr. D. MASON: I beg to ask leave to move the adjournment of the House on a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
the continuous fall in the value of the paper pound, and the declared inability of His Majesty's Government to offer any remedy to arrest its further fall.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member proposes to move the Adjournment of the House on a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the continuous fall in the value of the paper pound and the declared inability of His Majesty's Government to offer any remedy to arrest its further fall. I am afraid that that would hardly come under the rule of Standing Order No. 8 which deals with the Adjournment of the Rouse. I do not think the rule was framed to deal with a matter of that kind. It can hardly be described as one of such urgency that it would come under that Standing Order. No doubt, in a certain sense, it may be described as urgent, but the hon. Member says himself that it is continuous. Therefore, I cannot accept it as a matter of urgency under Standing Order No. 8.

Mr. MASON: With all respect, may I ask when in your opinion the urgency will become urgent? When the paper pound is worth five shillings or, like the mark, valueless, should I then be in order in moving the Adjournment as a matter of urgency?

Mr. LANSBURY: I should like you, Mr. Speaker, to reconsider the matter in view of the fact that, although the fall may have been continuous, it may have reached such a point now that it is necessary for Parliament to take action. May I remind you that previous to the last General Election, and since, the right hon. Gentleman opposite and the Government have always maintained that this was a subject which they were called into being to deal with. Seeing that they have an overwhelming majority and can do what they please, is it not time that they did the job that they were elected to do?

Mr. SPEAKER: I am hardly qualified to give the right hon. Gentleman an answer to the latter part of his question. As regards the question of urgency, I do not dispute that it is urgent, but it is not one of those subjects
that come under Standing Order No. 8. It might just as well be dealt with tomorrow as to-day.

Mr. LANSBURY: But we are not sure about to-morrow. We can only deal with it now. May I remind you that so great is the emergency that the Prime Minister has carried round bundles of German marks in order to demonstrate the terrible plight that the country would be in if we got into this position.

Mr. LAMBERT: Could not this question be raised by the Opposition on Monday on the Vote on Account?

Sir H. SAMUEL: May I ask, through you, Mr. Speaker, whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consider making some statement on this matter which would be of a reassuring character?

Mr. SPEAKER: Of course, the subject could be raised on Monday on the Vote on Account. That is another reason why it cannot be taken under Standing Order No. 8.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council the business for next week, and also, in order to save time, the object of the proposal to suspend the 11 o'clock Rule.

Mr. BALDWIN: If I may answer the latter question first, the answer is a straight one. It is solely for the purpose of making a little more progress with the Government of India Bill. It is not proposed to sit late, but very often an extra half-hour makes a little difference, and we are rather behind the point we had hoped to reach.
The business for next week is as follows:
Monday: 1st allotted Supply day, Civil and Revenue Departments Vote on Account, Committee stage, Debate on Unemployment.
Tuesday and Wednesday: Government of India Bill, Committe stage.
Thursday: 2nd allotted Supply day, Civil and Revenue Departments Vote on Account, Report stage. There will be a Debate on the operations in the commodity markets.
The business for Friday will be announced later. On any day, if there is time, other Orders will be taken.

Mr. LANSBURY: On the question of suspending the Rule to-night, I should like to ask the Lord President whether it is to be a regular sort of proposition, and also to be assured that we are not to be asked to sit late this evening. As far as the official Opposition is concerned, I do not think that there has been any waste of time. The right hon. Gentleman should discipline his friends in this matter and not keep the House sitting late. I am not suggesting at all that they are wasting time, but, if there is any time being wasted, the right hon. Gentleman should deal with those of his own family.

Mr. BALDWIN: Members of our own family usually are very difficult to deal with, but I certainly hope that it will be a rare occurrence to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule on this particular business. With regard to the second question, I can only say that it is not our intention to sit late.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Has my right hon. Friend formed any idea of the point it is intended to reach in the discussion to-night?

Viscountess ASTOR: Will it not depend upon the length of the speeches?

Mr. CHURCHILL: It will depend upon the importance of the discussion.

Mr. BALDWIN: I have never attempted to lay down any point. It is

impossible to do so. It will be necessary to see if good progress is being made.

Mr. CHURCHILL: May I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to the fact that on Clause 13 the very important question of the Instrument of Instructions comes under discussion, and it will be very difficult to dispose of that unless we are to sit very late, which, I am very glad to hear, there is no intention of doing.

Mr. BALDWIN: There is no intention of doing that.

Mr. PALING: Was there not some understanding by a Committee which considered the Committee stage, that, in view of the agreement made, it would not be necessary to sit late or to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule?

Mr. BALDWIN: I was not at the discussions myself, but I think there will be general agreement that we are a little behind the position at which we ought to have been by now. Therefore, I am afraid that to-night it is necessary to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule, and I hope that it will facilitate procedure.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Baldwin.]

The House divided: Ayes, 251; Noes, 34.

Division No. 66.]
AYES.
[3.55 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter


Albery, Irving James
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J.A.(Birm., W.)
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Edgbaston)
Elmley, Viscount


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Emrys-Evans, P. V.


Apsley, Lord
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Everard, W. Lindsay


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D,
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst


Atholl, Duchess of
Colfox, Major William Philip
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cooke, Douglas
Fox, Sir Gilford


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cooper, A. Dull
Fraser, Captain Sir Ian


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Fuller, Captain A. G.


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Ganzonl, Sir John


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Cranborne, Viscount
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Gillett, Sir George Masterman


Blindell, James
Crooke, J. Smedley
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Bossom, A. C.
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Gledhill, Gilbert


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J, C. C.
Glossop, C. W. H.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Gluckstein, Louis Halle


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Davison, Sir William Henry
Goff, Sir Park


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Dawson, Sir Philip
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Dickle, John P.
Grigg, Sir Edward


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Donner, P. W.
Grimston, R. V.


Burnett, John George
Doran, Edward
Guy, J. C. Morrison


Butler, Richard Austen
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Dunglass, Lord
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)


Castlereagh, Viscount
Eady, George H.
Harris, Sir Percy


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony
Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Moss, Captain H. J.
Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine, C.)


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Smithers, Sir Waldron


Holdsworth, Herbert
Munro, Patrick
Somervell, Sir Donald


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Hornby, Frank
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Soper, Richard


Horobin, Ian M.
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid
Spens, William Patrick


Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
North, Edward T.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romford)
Nunn, William
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)


Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Oman, Sir Charles William C
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Orr Ewing, I. L.
Stevenson, James


Janner, Barnett
Palmer, Francis Noel
Stones, James


Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Patrick, Colin M.
Strauss, Edward A.


Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Peake, Osbert
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Pearson, William G.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Peat. Charles U.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Kerr, Hamilton W.
Petherick, M.
Summersby, Charles H.


Kirkpatrick, William M.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Sutcliffe, Harold


Knox, Sir Alfred
Potter, John
Tate, Mavis Constance


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n.S.)


Leckie, J. A.
Procter. Major Henry Adam
Templeton, William P.


Leech, Or. J. W.
Radford, E. A.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Thomas, James P. L, (Hereford)


Levy, Thomas
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Lewis, Oswald
Ramsay T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Liddall, Walter S.
Rankin, Robert
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock]
Rathbone, Eleanor
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Lindsay, Noel Ker
Rea, Walter Russell
Tree, Ronald


Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Lloyd, Geoffrey
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G.(Wd. Gr'n)
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Mabane, William
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)
Rickards, George William
Wardlaw-Milne. Sir John S.


MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Warrencer. Sir Victor A. G.


McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Watt, Major George Steven H.


McKie, John Hamilton
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Wells, Sydney Richard


Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
White, Henry Graham


McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Rothschild, James A. de
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Macpherson, Rt. Hon. Sir Ian
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Magnay, Thomas
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Wise, Alfred R.


Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Salmon, Sir Isldore
Womersley, Sir Walter


Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Marsden, Commander Arthur
Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney).
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Young, Ernest J, (Middlesbrough, E.)


Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard



Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Savery, Samuel Servington
Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir


Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Scone, Lord
George Penny.


NOES.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Grundy, Thomas W.
Paling, Wilfred


Banfield. John William
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Parkinson, John Allen


Batey, Joseph
Jenkins, Sir William
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)


Cape, Thomas
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Thorne, William James


Cleary, J. J.
Lawson, John James
Tinker, John Joseph


Cove, William G.
Logan, David Gilbert
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lunn, William
West, F. R.


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Wilmot, John


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Mainwaring, William Henry



Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Nathan, Major H. L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. John and Mr. Groves.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B: Lord Burghley; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Hutchison.

STANDING COMMITIEE, C.

Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C: Mr. Flanagan; and had appointed in substitution: Sir Richard Meller.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to make provision as to the disposition of certain regimental charitable funds." [Regimental Charitable Funds Bill [Lords.]

Orders of the Day — GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL.

Considered in Committee [FIFTH DAY—Progress 27th February].

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 9.—(Council of ministers.)

The CHAIRMAN: The first Amendment I select on Clause 9 is that in the name of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams)—in page 7, line 3, to leave out Sub-section (3).

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: Is the Amendment in my name and that of several of my hon. Friends—in page 6, line 41, to leave out, "required so to do, "and to insert," not debarred from doing so,"—not in order?

The CHAIRMAN: It is not selected.

4.6 p.m.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 7, line 3, to leave out Sub-section (3).
I take it, Sir Dennis, that you have selected this particular Amendment because it enables us to discuss all the major problems which arise under this Clause—the problems of the relationship of the Governor-General to his ministers. There are in the Sub-section the words "in his discretion," and also the words "his individual judgment." I want to be clear that I have interpreted the significance of these words accurately, and perhaps the Secretary of State will be good enough to contradict me if I am inaccurate. I gather that when the Governor-General acts in his discretion it is a case where he acts without being under the obligation of consulting his ministers at all, and that he acts perfectly freely. On the other hand, when he exercises his individual judgment, that is a case where he consults his ministers but is not obliged to take their advice, and, therefore, his final decision may or may not disagree with the advice tendered to him by his ministers. I hope that I have got the correct interpretation, because it is necessary in discussing this most important constitutional issue that we should be all quite clear as to the meaning of the words we are using. As my interpretation has not been challenged, I assume that I have correctly
interpreted the significance of these words.
Quite clearly in this Clause we are setting up a system which is not the same as the system that prevails here. Where there is a relationship between the Sovereign and the Ministers here, the Sovereign acts on the advice of his Ministers, that is to say, the Sovereign does not act in his discretion and does not exercise his individual judgment so far as constitutional issues are concerned. But, under the Constitution we are building up, there are three ways, apparently, in which the Governor-General may act. First of all, there are cases described in the Measure where he makes his own decision, subject only, of course, to the provisions of any Instrument of Instructions issued to the Governor-General as provided in Clause 14, but, subject to that limitation, at least so far as ministers are concerned, it does not matter to them what his relationships may be with the Secretary of State when he is acting in his own discretion. That is the first case where he acts without reference to the ministers at all. The next case is where he asks his ministers for their views, and, having obtained them, he then takes his own decision, again, however, as I understand, subject to the provisions of Clause 14. Finally, there is the case where, presumably, under the Bill the ministers who are appointed, as will be seen in Sub-section (1) of this Clause, not merely to aid him, but to advise him. In those cases they are entitled to tender advice, as ministers here tender advice to the Sovereign, and in that case the Governor-General is bound to take their advice, subject however, of course, to the provisions of Clause 12, where the question of the special responsibilities of the Governor-General arise.
It is right, I think, that we should attempt to explore what is quite frankly a new system of ministerial responsibilitiy. I do not know whether there exists in the world anything quite like this, except to the extent that it maybe said to exist partially under the present system of Provincial government, and before we let go this Clause it is very desirable, not only that we should realise, but that those in India who are following our deliberations should realise, precisely what degree of responsibility we
are proposing to confer upon the ministers at the centre in India. The full interpretation of that, of course, means reading the whole of the first 45 Clauses of the Bill at any rate. But at the moment we are not considering all that. We are considering it in principle rather than in detail in this Sub-section.
There is the further point that the person who has to interpret where discretion or individual judgment is to be exercised is to be the Governor-General himself, and there may be cases where the Governor-General may act in his discretion or exericse his individual judgment 'In a way which, in fact, may be in conflict with the principles of the Act, or, at least, cases where the ministers may think he is acting in conflict with the principles of the Act. That raises curious points and, possibly, difficulties. I see the risk of a very undesirable conflict between the Governor-General and his ministers in respect of a matter which the ministers believe is one where they are entitled to give advice and are entitled to expect the advice to be accepted, and where the Governor-General thinks it is not a case where he is obliged to accept their advice, and can act quite freely. Of course, there is the overriding authority of the Secretary of State, and, clearly, if a Governor-General were taking this course—shall I say stupidly?—there would be the check of the Secretary of State. But if we take a case where both the Governor-General and the Secretary of State are in agreement, and where the ministers take the view that there is, in fact, a constitutional breach, then, I think, certain difficulties might arise with people who, whatever their merits or demerits may be, are peculiarly sensitive.
There are great risks, I think, in dealing with people who are, perhaps, more sensitive in public matters than we are. We have all got a little hardened by our past experience, but we are dealing here with a peculiarly sensitive body of people, and we may be creating a system which is bound to give rise to friction. I am, for the moment, assuming that this Bill will become an Act substantially in the form in which it now appears, though I hope not, but for the purpose of my Amendment I am basing myself on that assumption. I think that we want to have the conceptions underlying this Sub-section very clearly outlined. We
want to hear from the Secretary of. State a clear interpretation of how this Subsection is going to be worked, and when we have had that we may come to the conclusion that it is necessary to define with rather greater precision what discretion means, what judgment means, and in what place it is to be applied. One thing which rather perturbs me is the relationship of this Sub-section with Subsection (2) of Clause 12 which says:
If and in so far as any special responsibility of the Governor-General is involved, he shall, in the exercise of his functions, exercise his individual judgment as to the action to be taken.
If my earlier interpretation is correct, then the Governor-General has to consult his Ministers, and to consult them conceivably in circumstances where it may be necessary for him to take drastic action against his Ministers and to tell them in advance what he is going to do. I give that by way of example. My object in moving the Amendment is not that there should not be some appropriate Sub-section here, but that the real significance of this Sub-section may be clear to hon. Members in this Committee and to others outside.

4.17 p.m.

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: I should like to ask one or two questions on this Sub-section, which does raise some rather important points. In the first place, I should like to ask whether under the Second Schedule this is one of the matters which may be altered by Amendment. As I read the Second Schedule this may be altered by Amendment and would not affect the Instrument of Accession if it were so altered. Suppose the Sub-section were altered to read that the Federal Court shall be empowered to decide this particular matter instead of leaving it to the decision of the Governor-General, then the words in the Second Schedule are:
Save with respect to the exorcise by the Governor-General…of the functions of the council of ministers, and the choosing and summoning of ministers and their tenure of office; the functions of the Governor-General with respect to external affairs and defence.
As far as I can see the Second Schedule does not deal, in the savings in Part II, Chapter II, with the question of whether the actions of the Governor-General are to be decided to be within the Act by some other authority than the Governor
General himself. That raises an important point, as to whether such alteration can be made. In the second place, I should like to ask whether Clause 203 applies to a situation which may arise under this Sub-section? That is the power of the Governor-General to consult the Federal Court—
If at any time it appears to the Governor-General that a question of law has arisen, or is likely to arise, which is of such a nature and of such public importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the Federal Court upon it, he may in his discretion refer the question to that court for consideration, and the court may, after such hearing as they think fit, report to the Governor-General thereon.
I can understand that if a discussion arose between Ministers and the Governor-General as to whether a particular matter came within the Governor-General's discretion or within his powers of acting on the advice of his Ministers, it would be a matter of vital public importance. One would assume that the Governor-General has the power, if he wishes, under Clause 203 to refer the matter as to whether it was within his discretion or not to the Federal Court. That may provide a safety valve on matters of dispute between the two. In the third place, I should like to ask a question under Clause 198, Sub-section (2), which says:
Nothing in this Part of this Act shall be construed as derogating from any prerogative right of His Majesty to grant special leave to appeal in any criminal case.
It only purports to deal with criminal cases, but I should like to ask whether the power of His Majesty to refer any matter to the Privy Council as a consultative body, is still left? If a dispute arises as to the interpretation of this Constitution between the Governor-General and his Ministers will the Crown be able to refer that matter, if it is considered necessary, to the Privy Council for discussion, argument and recommendation? There again it might be a very important safety valve as regards disputes which might arise in India. Lastly, I should like to ask whether if none of these means are available it will be possible to raise in this House the question of the exercise of particular powers by the Governor-General when a dispute has appeared and Ministers claim that he should exercise those powers of consulting them and
accepting their advice. Unless one or other of these methods are available the Sub-section means the complete dictatorship of the Governor-General, because he will be able to act in any matter, and, if he says that he did it in his individual judgment, he cannot possibly have it disputed by any one at all. I am anxious to know if any of the methods I have suggested are open for getting the matter decided by someone other than the Governor-General, and, if so, which of these methods are available?

4.24 p.m.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I indicate the attitude of the Government towards this Amendment. As to the important and rather technical points raised by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), they will be answered in due course by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. I regret that the Government are quite unable to accept the Amendment. In fact, the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) addressed most of his argument to the general points in connection with the Clause. Let me draw his attention to what would happen if we were to accept the Amendment and omit this Subsection.

Viscount WOLMER: We are not going to press the Amendment.

Mr. BUTLER: The Amendment having been moved, the Government desire to pay due attention to the views of those who have moved it, and, even if valuable time is taken up, it is in the interests of the Committee that the Government should indicate their attitude.

Viscount WOLMER: The hon. Member is aware that Amendments are frequently moved in order to elucidate points.

Mr. BUTLER: I quite understand the Noble Lord's interjection, but I am trying to give to the Committee the effect of the Amendment if it were carried, and I think that I am quite as much within the Parliamentary rules of order as the Noble Lord was in his interjection. The Sub-section is vital to the scheme on which the powers of the Governor-General and his relations with Ministers is built up. It enables him to decide
finally whether a particular question falls within his discretionary powers, and prevents questions being raised in the courts or otherwise as to whether he has or has not exercised his discretion and his individual judgment in any case. It is essential in these matters of the relationship of the Governor-General to his Ministers that the discretion in these matters should rest with the Governor-General himself; otherwise, there would be great opportunities for confusion as to whether they fall within a reserved department or within his special responsibilities. For these reasons, we cannot accept the Amendment.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I hope we shall get A reply from the Attorney-General to the points that have been put.

4.26 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): I was making inquiries on one or two matters which have been raised during the debate. The first question which the hon. and learned Member for Fast Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) asked was whether the Sub-section could be amended in accordance with the provisions of the second Schedule. The hon. and learned Member referred to certain exceptions in the rather long paragraph with regard to matters an Amendment whereof is not to affect the validity of the Instrument of Accession. He read a few words, but if he will read a little further down he will find these words:
and the discharge of his functions by or under the Act in his discretion or in the exercise of his individual judgment.
That answers his question as to whether the Sub-section can be amended under the provisions of the Second Schedule. The answer is "No." His next question was whether Clause 203 can be used for the purpose of taking the opinion of the Federal Court. The answer is in the affirmative. The provision in Clause 203 quite plainly leads to that conclusion. As to the powers under Section 4 of the Privy Council Act, with reference to the power of His Majesty to refer any questions to the Privy Council for their advice, the answer is that that provision remains unaltered by anything in this Bill.

Sir S. CRIPPS: Would it cover this case?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The words of the Section are very wide indeed, and I have no doubt, speaking subject to any correction which I may desire to make after looking at the precise words of the Section, that the power of His Majesty is unfettered and that he may refer any question to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council under Section 4 of the Privy Council Act, The hon. and learned Member also asked whether the action of the Governor-General in relation to his powers under this Sub-section can be called in question in this House. The answer is "Yes." These are matters for which the Governor-General and the Secretary of State are answerable and, therefore, are matters which can be discussed on the Floor of the House.

4.29 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT: May I ask for your guidance as to whether there is any possibility in the near future of raising a question which is not, I understand, in order on this Amendment, namely, that part of the Bill which appears to quarrel with the report of the Joint Select Committee as to what the Governor-General may do.

The CHAIRMAN: I think that the hon. and gallant Member should defer his remarks until I put the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. CHURCHILL: The matter can only be raised, I understand, on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" This particular point of principle could not be raised at any later stage on a specific Amendment to enable the Committee to decide aye or nay, but can only be raised on the Clause. In the proviso to Sub-section (1) there appear the words "Whereby or under this Act he is required so to do." We wish to raise the issue whether he is debarred from doing so. Where could that point be raised?

The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman has definitely based his point on an Amendment which was on the Order Paper and has not been selected. Of course it is always possible that the Chair, in exercising the right of non-selection, may have missed a point which hon. Members desire to raise. In the event of his having done so the point can be raised on the Question, "That
the Clause stand part of the Bill." With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's other point, I am afraid that I did not sufficiently understand it to say whether on any subsequent Clause it would be admissible to deal with it. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to raise a particular matter on words in this Clause, he can, of course, do so on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Amendment negatived.

4.32 p.m.

Mr. BAILEY: I beg to move, in page 7, line 12, at the end, to add:
(4) (i)In this Act the expression 'in his discretion' when applied to any act of the Governor-General or any exercise of his functions or powers means that such act may be done and such functions and powers may be exercised by the Governor-General without consultation with his Ministers.
(ii)In this Act the expression 'his individual judgment,' when applied to any act of the Governor-General or any exercise of his functions or powers, means that such act may be done and such functions and powers may be exercised by the Governor-General only after consultation with his Ministers but notwithstanding any advice given to him by his Ministers.
I do not want to occupy any length of time in moving this Amendment, the point of which shortly is this: It seeks to clarify the possible distinction between "discretion" and "individual judgment." I should be very grateful if the learned Attorney-General would say what is the view of the Government's legal advisers as to the distinction, if any, between discretion and individual judgment, and whether or not—this is most important of all—the Governor-General may use his individual judgment without consulting his Ministers.

4.33 p.m.

The SOLICITOR- GENERAL (Sir Donald Somervell): In moving this Amendment, my hon. Friend has confined himself to asking two specific questions. He asks what is the distinction between individual judgment and discretion. The Bill has been drafted in this way: The words "individual judgment" are used in relation to actions by the Governor-General on his individual judgment in the ordinary sense of the word within the ambit in which normally he would be acting on
the advice of his Ministers. If within that ambit it is sought to give the Governor-General special powers or responsibilities, then the words "individual judgment" are used. They are found, for example, in Clause 12. The words "in his, discretion" are used where the Governor-General will be acting on his own judgment but in an area outside that field. For example, in Clause 11 the functions of the Governor-General in respect of defence are to be exercised by him in his discretion. It is a matter of drafting which, once apprehended, I think it will be agreed, is convenient and useful.
My hon. Friend asked one further point, whether when the words "individual judgment" are used the Governor-General can act without consulting his Ministers. The answer is that as quite obviously that action is in the field where normally he would be acting on, the advice of his Ministers, no cleavage between them as to right actions can possibly have arisen, except of course as a result of something that has happened and has been discussed; but, of course, once he had decided that within that field action must be taken, he would take it. Take quite an impossible case. Suppose that Ministers simply do not turn up. Then, of course, he must take the action in order to carry out the obligations conferred upon him. I do not think that the sort of test of consultation or non-consultation is really the clue to the meaning. The clue is that the words "individual judgment" are used in respect of powers within the area in which normally in ordinary times he would be acting on the advice of his Ministers. The words "in his discretion" are used in respect of powers and functions outside that area.

Mr. CHURCHILL: It is, of course, a very convenient distinction between the two functions, and, if my memory serves me right, it is fully explained in the report of the Joint Select Committee. Undoubtedly there is great difficulty in describing this action and the rights of a Governor-General under the two specific and separate methods. I am hound to say that I agree with the Solicitor-General that if there is a difference between the Governor-General and his Ministers and he exercises his individual judgment because previous consultation with them has broken down, he will not be under the
need of consulting them any more. All parleys having come to an end he will take the matter into his own hands and act freely. I gather that that is so?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Yes. Of course he can, if he thinks proper and if all friendly relations have broken down, proceed to act on his own responsibility. I do not mean to imply that in those circumstances he is precluded from consulting his Ministers. At any point he may think it right to consult them.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Even when they differ? I may be in error, but I have not seen any definition of these two convenient terms in the Bill. I do not think that there is any definition. This Amendment is an attempt to give a definition to these two new terms of art which are being introduced into our legal terminology. Are the Government sure that there is no need for definition? In what way will this definition be conveyed after the Report of the Joint Select Committee has been relegated to the Library and this Bill constitutes the only current vehicle for the transaction of business? It may be that there is no need for this definition?

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL: My right hon. Friend will appreciate that I did not deal with that point because the Mover of the Amendment did not do so. I quite appreciate the point. As my right hon. Friend will see, this matter will not be a matter in the ordinary sense of going to the courts. That was dealt with in Sub-section (4). These definitions are not definitions in the ordinary sense of the word. My right hon. Friend asked what would be the position when the report of the Joint Select Committee has faded from our minds. The method of application and explanation of these words will occur in the Instrument of Instructions. In our view that is the right place for them.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am much obliged for that explanation.

4.41 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I fear I am not content with the statement that the explanation of these two very important terms is to be only in the Governor-General's Instrument of Instructions. I think they ought to appear in the Con-
stitution Act, not only as a means of distinguishing these two sets of responsibilities, but also in order to put it beyond a shadow of doubt that the Governor-General has the power to act both in his discretion and on his individual judgment. I am confirmed in this view by the fact that The Government of India Act of 1919 gives certain special powers both to the Governor-General and to Governors, powers which in many cases I believe it has been found extremely difficult to exercise. Section 4 (12) of that Act gives the Governors power in regard to transferred departments. It says that the Governor shall be governed by the advice of his Ministers unless he sees sufficient cause to dissent from their opinion, in which case he may require action to be taken otherwise than in accordance with that advice. That means that to-day the Governor of a Province has unlimited power to dissent from the advice of his Ministers in regard to the departments handed over under the 1919 Act, and yet Governors have found it very difficult to exercise that power.
Let me give one or two instances. Number 12 of the devolution rules made under the 1919 Act gives the Secretary of State in Council power to fix the number of officers of the Indian Medical Service which shall be employed by each provincial Government and to say what appointments they shall hold and on What terms and conditions. The Secretary of State in Council has laid down that in one Province at least 25 officers of the Indian Medical Service shall be employed as civil surgeons. Yet an ex-Inspector-General of Civil Hospitals has told how that number has declined in that province and how the health service has deteriorated as a result. He told the Joint Committee how he had repeatedly gone to the Minister of Health and protested against this reduction, and how he had always been put off. He also told the committee of the many appointments made by the Minister of Health otherwise than on merit, which again had seriously added to the inefficiency of the service; and he stated how he went to the Governor repeatedly on this and other points affecting the efficiency of this all-important health service, and could never get the Governor to exercise his powers.

Earl WINTERTON: On a point of Order. Is the Noble Lady entitled to discuss the question of Governors' powers on the Amendment? It deals only with the Governor-General.

The CHAIRMAN: That, of course, is the point. At the same time the Noble Lady would be entitled to refer to them as illustrating her point. I am bound to say I was listening very carefully to try to see how her arguments were applied.

Earl WINTERTON: I raised the point of order, because I do not think she is accurate in her description of what occurs under the existing law. If she is allowed to refer to these matters, it will be open to others to answer her.

Duchess of ATHOLL: It is not a case of argument but of what was stated as a matter of fact to the Joint Select Committee, of which my Noble Friend was a member.

The CHAIRMAN: Obviously that is not a matter that is dealt with by the Amendment.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I was merely using this as an illustration of the difficulty that had already been experienced in exercising a clearly defined power stated in the 1919 Act. I can give my Noble Friend another respect in which the Governor-General has apparently found it—

The CHAIRMAN: That is exactly one of those cases where, as I have tried to explain, it is legitimate to quote a case, but it is not, to my mind, legitimate to go into that case at length. The Noble Lady will see at once what has already arisen as the result of her long description of a particular incident which led another hon. Member to discuss it because he regards it as inaccurate. It is as well when quoting illustrations merely to quote them and not to go into long details of them.

Duchess of ATHOLL: The Governor-General under the same devolution rules has power to suspend or revoke any powers which have been transferred, which have been seriously abused.

The CHAIRMAN: Whether transferred powers have or have not been abused is not a question that arises on this Amendment. It is really a very narrow point
indeed of drawing any distinction between two particular expressions.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I thought my right hon. Friend had raised the wider point. I mentioned that it was on the wider point that I wished to speak, namely, the necessity of putting beyond the shadow of doubt in the Act of Parliament what those powers are which may be exercised by the Governor-General.

The CHAIRMAN: No, the Noble Lady is wrong. This is not an occasion on which there can be discussed in any way the merits of any particular subject of procedure under the Governor-General's responsibility.

Mr. CHURCHILL: But is it not an occasion when it is open to discuss whether this definition of these two new terms of art, if any definition is to be given, should figure on the face on any Instrument of Instruction?

The CHAIRMAN: That may be, but even then it is a very narrow one.

Duchess of ATHOLL: That is the point that I wish to make, the necessity for having those powers put beyond a shadow of doubt in the Act of Parliament. When these powers were reserved under the 1919 Act, I do not believe there were Indians who then objected to them, but the Indian delegates to the Joint Select Committee made clear—

The CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lady must not discuss the powers but only the definition.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I do not wish to discuss the powers, but it seems necessary to put them in the Act of Parliament. As a matter of fact, a very strong opinion came from Europeans in India as to the importance of showing that these powers were intended to be used if necessary, and were not merely illusory powers.

4.50 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I hope the Secretary of State will say a word on this. I have an open mind, but I should like to hear what there is to be said. I thought from what the Solicitor-General said that the Instrument of Instruction was satisfactory, but it would be better if the Secretary of State made it clear that the strength of these two new terms of art will not in any way be detracted
from if they are not put on the face of the Statute. At first sight it appears that they would seem to be detracted from, because the Instrument of Instruction can be varied by an Address to the Crown by both Houses, whereas the Statute requires an amending Bill. Therefore, there is a change. We should be much obliged if the right hon. Gentleman would give us guidance on the point.

4.51 p.m.

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Sir Samuel Hoare): I can satisfy my right hon. Friend in a sentence. The right course is to keep the definition in the Instrument of Instruction. He need not be worried about the powers. The powers to be exercised are set out in the Act. They can only be amended by an amending Act. It is much better, however, to put the definition into the Instrument of Instruction. Looking at it as a layman, it is safer.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

4.52 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT: The point that I wish to raise on this Clause, which seems to me of importance, is with regard to the actual functions of the Governor-General and the fact that the Bill as drafted does not appear to carry out the exact intentions of the Select Committee. In the report of the Joint Select Committee I think it was understood that the executive authority of His Majesty was vested primarily in the Governor-General, and in the case of the Provinces, of course, the Governors. This authority was to be so far regulated by the Instrument of Instruction that it was ordinarily to be exercised on the advice of Ministers, conformably to the constitutional practice which is now always understood in this country. At the same time the legal authority of the Governor would be unquestioned if at any time he had to exercise it even against the advice of his Ministers. Putting it in another way, the Governor-General could legally do on his own authority whatever any or all his Ministers could do. He might have to run a course absolutely counter to the decision of his Ministers and in that case, although he might be called up by a higher authority—it might be necessary for the Secretary of State to intervene—at the same time the
position appeared to be quite clear that he had very full powers in this respect. It was pointed out in the Report of the Joint Select Committee that if the Governor-General found that there was any difficulty—a temporary deficiency might occur in the cash required to meet current obligations, such as the issue of monthly pay—he might have to take action, and the words used are:
If need arose for the Governor to take special steps for the purpose, in virtue of his special responsibilities, it would, of course, be open to him to adopt whatever methods were most appropriate in the circumstances and, if necessary, to meet the situation by borrowing.
In the Bill as drafted there are no actual words which specify that power, and that is why many of us were desirous of seeing put into the Bill alternative words to read that the Governor-General is not debarred from using those powers. That would place him in the same constitutional position that we have always understood in this country. I had hoped that the Secretary of State might accept that proposal. Perhaps he would consider it at a later stage, or he may be able to show me that it is not necessary, but it appears that the words of the Bill do not exactly interpret the intentions of the Joint Select Committee.

4.56 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: I understand that the words do interpret the words of the Joint Select Committee. I am also informed that, as a matter of draftsmanship, the words suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend would really be restrictive words and that from the point of view of draftsmanship these words are better. If he will take it from me that these words carry out the Joint Select Committee's recommendations and that they are less restrictive than his own, I will undertake to look into it and to confirm that.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Prima facie it would seem to be the opposite. The mysteries of the law are profound, but, prima facie, if a man is required to do a thing it is more limited than if he is not debarred from doing it. But I think we must rest content with the undertaking that the Secretary of State has given that, if there be any substantial point in the matter, we may refer to it at a later stage.

4.59 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: We should not like this Clause to pass without stating
generally what we feel in regard to its merits. It seems to me—I hope I am wrong—that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite who have been discussing the powers and functions of the Governor-General as they are defined in Clause 9 have really had in their mind the desirability of making as rigid as possible the final authority of the Governor-General. We take a different view. Circumstances have thrown us into the same Lobby as hon. Members opposite on previous occasions, and we shall have to make it clear that, if we found ourselves there again to-day on this Clause, we should find ourselves there for different reasons. We are very anxious about the success of the experiment if it is to be tried at the centre. Here for the first time we are trying to amplify—I hope that is an appropriate word to use—to extend the nature of the instrument of government at the centre and we are exceedingly anxious, therefore, that, so far as possible, there shall function at the centre a group of ministers who shall be as nearly as possible established on similar lines to a Cabinet in this country. That is, broadly speaking, our idea.
We had an Amendment on the Paper in which we proposed to bring out that idea, and I do not complain of its not being called, but the point which we want to emphasise is, that here is the Governor-General being placed in a very special position at the centre, and as we understand and interpret the effect of this Clause 9, for all practical purposes he will be a sort of dictator at that centre. We think it would be a bad thing if the Governor-General's council of 10 ministers should embark upon their task feeling in any way that their responsibility could be shunted off on to the shoulders of the Governor-General. There is nothing that will develop the sense of responsibility among these people more than the consciousness that they are answerable for their own actions as ministers, and we are exceedingly keen, therefore, that as early as possible these ministers should begin to function, not as a group of puppets whom the Governor-General can move as he thinks fit, but as a group of people exercising corporate responsibility in the same way as a Cabinet discharges its responsibilities here.
We are exceedingly anxious that, so far as these 10 ministers are concerned, they shall act in the same sense as a group of British Ministers act who are in Cabinet offices. We want a, sense of Cabinet responsibility to grow in India, and I am sure that I am fairly right in my prognostication that unless that is speedily realised, there will be the same tendency under the new conditions as has prevailed in parts of India under the old, where, when an awkward situation arose or an awkward responsibility had to be shouldered, it was easy to say that the Governor-General or the Governor, as the case might be, was responsible. We want to bring home to these people at the very beginning that they must be responsible, not only for their successes, but for their failures as well, and there is nothing that will develop that sense of responsibility better than making them answerable not merely for their successes but for their failures.
I take the view that they must be free to make mistakes. They will learn by mistakes. That is how we all learn. That is how this Government is learning, bit by bit. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] My hon. Friends evidently see no signs of repentance in the Government even now, but I think I can see an occasional trace of a desire on its parts to repent. I sometimes have glimmerings of hope that there will be some sort of repentance in the dim and distant future. I want to make these people in India acquire confidence in the business of government by being confronted with the consequences of their own acts, and for that reason we are anxious to limit as far as possible the responsibilities of the Governor-General and mot to enlarge them.

5.5 p.m.

Mr. SPENS: I could take up much of the time of the Committee in replying to the speech of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones), who has just sat down, but there is one point on the drafting of this Clause to which I should like to call attention. Subsection (3) makes the Governor-General a judge in his own cause. It puts him in the position of deciding whether and when he ought to exercise his discretion.
Further, this Sub-section goes on to say that
the validity of anything done by the Governor-General shall not be called in question on the ground that he ought or ought not to have acted in his discretion.
When one studies the Bill, one finds out how in fact he does act on his discretion. One finds in Clause 43 and other Clauses that he is given certain powers which he can exercise, and one of those powers is the power of making ordinances. That is a power which he exercises in his discretion under Sub-section (5) of Clause 43, but when you look at Subsection (4) of that Clause, you find that his power to make ordinances is limited by the area in respect of which the Federal Legislature can legislate, and if he goes beyond that his ordinance is void.
I want to call attention to the point that apparently by Sub-section (3) of Clause 9 no one is to call in question the validity of any exercise by the Governor-General of his discretion, and yet by Subsection (4) of Clause 43 and by other Clauses certain exercises of his discretion are expressly said to be void or invalid. I suggest that these very definite words in Clause 9 require some limitation. It is a point which will require some consideration, but I put it forward so that the Clause shall not pass from us without a word of warning that the very definite wording of this Sub-section (3), making every action of the Governor-General in the exercise of his discretion unquestionable, is in fact in contradiction to certain other Clauses in the Bill, which specify that certain of his actions may be void and therefore, in my submission, subject to question.

5.8 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: If I may clear the point of drafting raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) out of the way, I would suggest that he has confused two things, if I may say so with some trepidation. There is the power of the Governor-General to make an ordinance, which is dealt with in Clause 43, and if he has no power to make an ordinance, if he makes one which he is not competent to enact under the Act, it is to be void. But assuming that it is an ordinance which he is competent to enact under the Act, then the question arises as to whether
that action is something which he is to do in his discretion or not, and the way in which he enacts the ordinance is a matter for him to decide. So far as this question is concerned as to whether he is to do it in his discretion or in his individual judgment, upon that point his decision is final under the Clause in question, but that does not affect the provision that if there is no power at all to enact the ordinance, it shall be void.

5.9 p.m.

Colonel GRETTON: The speech of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) to my mind cuts right at the root of the Clause. The Clause gives the Governor-General those powers which he requires to exercise his discretion and those other powers which are in the terms of the Bill handed over to the ministers of the Federal Legislature. These powers of the Governor-General are one of the safeguards in the Bill, and we should look with the greatest alarm at their being frittered away or diminished in any sense by this Committee. One can see all manner of difficulties in exercising these powers, but at any rate they should be there to be exercised. The hon. Member for Caerphilly does not appear to realise that the powers which are ordinarily exercised by the ministers of the Federal Legislature are only to be taken over in case of a breakdown or emergency, and it was somewhat heartless of him, I think, to recommend that ministers should be able to go on indefinitely making mistakes and committing errors of administration to the detriment of the countless millions of India who would have to suffer from a breakdown in administration or from the errors which might be made. On that ground alone, I should urge on the Government as strongly as I could that these powers are of vital importance when setting up a new constitution and entrusting them, through unknown machinery, to those who are not accustomed to them.

5.12 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I wish to call attention to much more than a drafting point, namely, the fact that this is the Clause which makes the great transfer of control at the centre of government in India, which is the chief point on which we take exception to the Bill. This is the Clause in which it first becomes
apparent that the authority of the Federation, with the exception of the Governor-General's reserved and special responsibilities, will be exercised by ministers. It seems to me to be the Clause which first makes it clear that, except in special fields, the executive authority of the Federation is to be exercised by ministers responsible, not to the Governor-General, but to the elected Federal Legislature. That is a tremendous jump from the present position to a position in which all the provincial departments will have been handed over and all at the centre except the three reserved to the Governor-General and the field covered by his special responsibility.

The CHAIRMAN: I am sorry again to interrupt the Noble Lady, but once more I think she has mistaken what the Clause does. This particular Clause merely sets up the council of ministers. It does not deal at all with what their powers relate to. That question will arise at different places in the Bill.

Duchess of ATHOLL: With great respect, Sir Dennis, I would ask you to observe the words at the beginning of the Clause, where the ministers are to be appointed to aid and advise the Governor-General, and I would ask you to remember that in the memorandum explanatory of the Bill it was declared that the right to advise, that is to say, initiate proposals, rests with ministers. That seems to be a very important power to hand over to the ministers. Though defence is reserved to the Governor-General, it will rest with ministers to initiate proposals in regard to railways, posts, telegraphs, arms, explosives, and munitions, and various other departments which may seriously embarrass the efficiency of the administration, and, of course, all initiative in regard to tariffs and commerce generally passes into the hands of ministers. The fiscal autonomy convention which, as my right hon. Friend pointed out on a previous occasion, contains some valuable safeguards if they are used, goes by the board. The control of the Press and the initiative in matters controlling what might be a reckless or seditious Press passes into the hands of ministers. The control of wireless also passes. That seems to me a point of enormous importance.

The CHAIRMAN: I am sorry to interrupt again, but the Noble Lady is getting far beyond this Clause. We shall come to all these subjects when they are set out in the Bill in so many words.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I presume it would be in order to discuss on this Clause the inconvenience of dyarchy, because this is the machinery which sets up the dyarchical process at the centre, with the Governor-General on the one hand and the ministers on the other, with divided and alternating responsibilities.

The CHAIRMAN: This is a Clause which sets up a council of ministers and discussion on the advisability of setting up such a council is distinctly in order.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I was trying to give illustrations of the powers which the council will have and giving concrete examples in order to bring home to the Committee what the proposals of the Bill will mean in practice. It is difficult sometimes to know what the wording of a Clause means, and I am not seeking to waste the time of the Committee, but merely drawing attention to what is in the Clause. It is, of course, a Clause in which dyarchy may become an actual fact under the Bill. No one in the Committee, I think, forgets how strenuously the Simon Commission opposed any suggestion of dyarchy at the centre. After investigating the idea of federation, they strenuously opposed the transfer of any responsibility at the centre. In a very interesting passage they seemed to me to indicate their doubts whether, if one day an all-India federation did become a reality, it would take the form of responsible government as we know it in this country. It is an extremely difficult matter which has not been sufficiently referred to in previous Debates. In spite of that grave warning, we have the Parliamentary system as we know it in this country transferred to the centre of the government in India with, of course, certain notable exceptions, which we in this quarter of the House feel that it may be very difficult to make really effective.
I would like the Committee to realise that the Governor-General has special responsibilities at the present moment, not only for peace and tranquillity, but for the interests of the Indian people. He will no longer be responsible for the interests of the people, but will have
responsibilities only in regard to matters which are a menace to peace or tranquillity and to other matters to which we shall come on a later Clause. That means that, however gravely the interests of Indian people may be menaced by devastating epidemics, disease or other calamities, the Governor-General can do nothing. All that rests with his Ministers. We, therefore, feel that in this Clause the great danger of the Bill lies, and it is impossible to let it go through without trying to point out some of those dangers.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. EMMOTT: It is plain from the submission which was made to you, Sir Dennis, by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) and from what you said in reply to him that an argument on the topic of dyarchy is in order on this Clause. Since this is the appropriate occasion, and so far as I can make out, the last occasion on which this issue will be clearly raised, I beg the leave of the Committee to address to it one or two observations upon it. This is the Clause which establishes the system of dyarchy, the system of divided authority, in the Central Government. The Noble Lady referred briefly to the report of the Statutory Commission, but I desire to bring once more before the Committee what was actually stated by the Commission on this subject. The Noble Lady had in mind, I think, the passage in paragraph 177 in which the Commission gave it as their view that there was a serious danger of development at the centre proceeding on wrong lines if the assumption was made that the only form of responsible government which could ultimately emerge was one which closely imitated the British Parliamentary system. I might refer also to paragraph 29 of the report, but I want to come immediately to the paragraph in which the Statutory Commission lays down in the most clear and specific terms their condemnation of dyarchy in the Central Government. Let me read what they actually said. It is in paragraph 165:
First, we lay down without hesitation the proposition that dyarchy at the centre, or any system of divided responsibility resembling dyarchy, is quite impossible. Unity in the central executive must be preserved at all costs.
Where is your unity now? They go on to say:
Dyarchy cannot be regarded as affording much training in taking responsibility for unpopular, though necessary, decisions, and it does nothing to guarantee unity of control and policy when unity is most essential and when the strength which unity ought to give is most needed.
Did the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) bear that in mind when he was addressing the Committee upon the necessity of developing a sense of responsibility in Indian Ministers? Does he think that the system of government now to be established at the centre—the system of dyarchy—will develop that sense of responsibility?

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I did not produce this Bill. The Government did.

Mr. EMMOTT: I do not bring that accusation against the hon. Member, but he was apparently approving of the establishment of this system of Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Perhaps the hon. Member will refer at some time to the paragraph which I have read and consider it. Now let me come to the final words of this paragraph. They are:
These are the main considerations which make any suggestion to introduce dyarchy into the Government of India wholly inadmissible.
It is impossible to exaggerate the importance of these expressions. The condemnation by the Statutory Commission of dyarchy in the Central Government is absolute and unqualified. Now what answer has been given from time to time by Members of the Statutory Commission or on behalf of the Statutory Commission to those who have pointed out that this new system of government contradicts the conclusions of the Commission? The hon. Member for Finchley (Mr. Cadogan), in a debate in this House on the 19th February, dealt very fairly with this point. In fact, he went so far as to say that the statement to which I have just referred was one which even the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping would not be able to explain away. Why he should think the right hon. Gentleman would wish to do so, I do not know. The hon. Member then said that he had expressed to his colleagues the opinion that the statement made by the Commission in regard to
dyarchy was too categorical, and he went on to say:
I wish to say that when the proposals"—
that is, the proposals of the Commission—
were examined by the Joint Select Committee that Committee came to the conclusion that, although our proposal was not dyarchy in form, it certainly was so in fact. I admit that we were wrong and that dyarchy at the Centre was inevitable."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th February, 1935; col. 287, Vol. 298.]
I do not believe they were wrong. I believe that the Commission were right in condemning the system of dyarchy. One of the most extraordinary features of this business has been the way in which, since the report of the Statutory 'Commission, the conclusions at which they arrived have been more and more departed from by the members of it. I believe that the conclusions at which they arrived were perfectly correct. But now the hon. Member for Finchley, one of the Members of the Commission, says the Commission were wrong, and he is prepared to adopt the new system.
That, however, is not the answer which has always been given or suggested on behalf of the Statutory Commission. It has been suggested from time to time by various persons that the change, or a change, which has taken place since the report of the Commission has fundamentally affected the whole position. The change which is referred to is, of course, the declaration regarding Federation which was made by certain Princes at the first Session of the Round Table Conference. But the point I insist upon is this. How has that change affected the arguments used by the Statutory Commission against dyarchy? I cannot conceive how they have been affected at all. Of course, a change has taken place—it may be of greater or less importance—but has the change in the situation of the Princes eliminated the defects inherent in the system of dyarchy? I believe that it has not affected them at all, and that the answer which is given to justify the abandonment of the arguments of the Statutory Commission is completely unsound. I prefer to accept the position of the hon. Member for Finchley who now says clearly and frankly, "We were wrong; if we are to establish this system of government in the centre at all we must have a system of divided authority."

Earl WINTERTON: As the hon. Gentleman is giving us this exceedingly interesting and erudite dissertation on dyarchy, I would like to point out to him that the Joint Select Committee dealt with all those arguments. He will find it at the bottom of page 19 of their report, in paragraph 35.

Mr. EMMOTT: I am afraid I have not got the report before me.

Earl WINTERTON: In that case the hon. Member should make himself acquainted with it, because he is making an attack on the conclusions of the Joint Select Committee, and we have dealt in our report with the very point with which he has been dealing in his speech.

Mr. EMMOTT: I am much obliged to the Noble Lord for his intervention. I have the report now; but does the Noble Lord expect me to read whole pages of the report of the Joint Select Committee?

Earl WINTERTON: I thought the hon. Gentleman, in justice to the Joint Select Committee, ought to deal with the arguments which we give against the decision reached by the Statutory Commission.

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: Surely the hon. Member can leave those arguments to be put forward by members of the Joint Select Committee?

Earl WINTERTON: I thought it would save time if the hon. Member referred to them.

Mr. EMMOTT: I am afraid I should hardly achieve the object which the Noble Lord desires if I acceded to his invitation. I wish to put my arguments quite shortly, and I have pursued the course I have pursued because, so far as I remember, the argument I am now putting forward has not hitherto been presented in this particular form to the House. I say that I frankly prefer the position of the hon. Member for Finchley, who asserts that the decision at which the Statutory Commission arrived was wrong, and holds that if we are to erect this system of government at the centre in India then we must have divided authority, that is to say, we must have dyarchy. But if that be so, then let it be recognised that we are establishing the central Government upon a principle of government which has been tried in the Provinces and found wanting. I remember that Sir Harcourt Butler, in a
delightful book which he has written upon India., relates some stories to show that dyarchy, although its exact meaning may be but little understood in India, has come to be regarded almost as a term of abuse in that country. He relates how two villagers were heard quarrelling with each other, and one was heard to say abusively and angrily to the other, "You are a dyarchy." I do not lay too great stress upon an anecdote, but certain it is that this system of government which we ere now to establish at the centre has come to be hated in India.
Let me remind the Committee why the system of government by divided authority has broken down, in so far as it has broken down, in. India. We talk much in this House about dyarchy, but it seems to me that it is very seldom that any attempt is made to understand it tar examine its nature at all. The reasons for its failure are, I think, most clearly given by the committee that was appointed by the Legislature of the United Provinces to co-operate with the Statutory Commission. It will be remembered that the provincial legislatures appointed committees to co-operate with the Statutory Commission, and it is in the report of the committee appointed by the Legislature of the United Provinces that the reasons for the failure of dyarchy are most clearly and interestingly stated. I hope the Secretary of State will not think I am wasting the time of the Committee if I read a passage from their report. They stated that:
A serious inherent defect of the dyarchical system was the weakening of the Governor in Council by the pressure of the Legislature on the Ministers,, and the weakening of the Ministers vis-a-vis the Legislature by reason of their connection with the Governor in Council.
There is the gist of the whole matter—the weakening of the Governor in Council by the pressure of the Legislature on the Ministers, and the weakening of the Ministers, in their turn, by reason of their connection with the Governor in Council. Can we afford to set up at the centre a system of government which will be subject to such strains and stresses, and which will inevitably develop such fearful weakness? It is the desire of His Majesty's Government to establish at the centre a stronger central government. But do they really think they are doing so? How can they think so in the face of these conclusions? There will be a
continuous and increasing and deadly pressure on the reserved subjects in the Central Government. The whole system of central government will be increasingly subjected to strains and stresses which will steadily weaken, and, as we believe, finally destroy it.

5.37 p.m.

Earl WINTERTON: As my hon. Friend the Member for Springburn (Mr. Emmott) refused to accept my invitation I would like to draw attention, in a very few words, to what is stated in paragraph 35 of the Report of the Joint Select Committee:
These are undoubtedly formidable objections, but they do not, we think, exhaust the question. It is impossible adequately to discuss "—
[Interruption.] My hon. Friend gave me the impression that he had not read the Report.

Mr. EMMOTT: Oh, yes, I have.

Earl WINTERTON: Then I regret that he did not deal with it, because it is not fair to present one side of the case. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, if he will allow me to say so, can mind his own business and allow me to make my speech.

Mr. LANSBURY: So can the Noble Lord mind his own business. He has no right to instruct other people.

Earl WINTERTON: Nor has the right hon. Gentleman any right, as Leader of the Opposition, to interrupt me.

Mr. LANSBURY: Yes I have, as a Member of the House.

Earl WINTERTON: If the right hon. Gentleman does not like my observations he can read them later.

Mr. LANSBURY: I do not intend to allow the Noble Lord to lecture me. He lectured the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Emmott) as though he were a schoolboy.

The CHAIRMAN: I think we are all rather inclined to lecture one another, and I am not sure that that is not one of the things that we are here for. I feel that if hon. Members were a little less thin-skinned we should get on better.

Earl WINTERTON: I am sorry if I said anything to which the Leader of the Opposition objected. I was under
the impression that he was interrupting me, but if I am wrong I withdraw anything I said. May I just refer to these few words in this paragraph? I had not intended to lecture my hon. Friend, but I wished—with the greatest respect and submission to the Leader of the Opposition—to call his attention to them.

Mr. EMMOTT: I can assure the Noble Lord I did not take his observations for a lecture.

Earl WINTERTON: The report states:
It is impossible adequately to discuss the real issues involved in a decision for or against the introduction of some measure of responsibility at the Centre if the discussion is confined to the Centre itself and is conducted in terms of 'dyarchy.'
I do not think that anyone would quarrel with that. We go on to say:
Like so many other words used in political controversy 'dyarehy' has collected round it associations which tend to obscure issues rather than to clarify them.
This is the sentence to which I wish to call my hon. Friend's attention.
The truth is that, in any Constitution, and above all in a Federal Constitution, there must be a division of responsibility at some point, and at that point there will always be a danger of friction.
That expresses no more than the truth. Whatever central government is proposed, even one set up under the proposals supported by hon. and right hon. Members who differ from us, there would me, in the words of our report,
a division of responsibility at some point and at that point there will always be a danger of friction.
We go on, in what I venture to submit are carefully argued paragraphs—paragraphs which, I think, had the support of the whole Committee, and not merely of Members representing one party—to deal with almost all the arguments which my hon. Friend put forward. It is, therefore, not fair, in a discussion of this matter, to ignore what I venture to submit is the very wise contribution which the Joint Committee make to the matter, and the reasons which they gave in opposing, to a very considerable extent, the conclusions reached by the Statutory Commission. I might add that in the light of the fresh evidence brought to bear on the subject the Statutory Commission might well have been less definite in the decision they reached.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: May I ask whether it is any more fair to pay attention to the Majority Report than to the Minority Report?

Earl WINTERTON: No, but I was under the impression that as regards this particular matter—if I am wrong, I apologise to my hon. Friend who was such a valued colleague on the Joint Select Committee—he and others did not dissent from the conclusions of the majority.

5.42 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: My Noble Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winter-ton) has introduced a temporary breeze into the debate this afternoon, which I certainly think does not tend to accelerate our procedure.

Earl WINTERTON: It was good-humoured.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am not so sure that it was good-humoured. The Noble Lord had no right to prescribe to my hon. Friend that he ought to state both sides of the case. I do not know how we shall ever get to the end of this Bill if it is to be an obligation of fairness and honour on each one of us to state not only our point of view but the point of view of the other side. I cannot imagine anything more likely to embarrass our proceedings. And then, of course, if we begin to state the point of view of the other side the further question will arise whether we are doing justice to that point of view. I think the debates would be endless if we were to embark on that course. The Noble Lord is a very keen supporter of this Measure, one of its principal promoters, one who has had the honour of sitting on the Joint Select Committee, and he has always, naturally, nursed a proper pride in his own handiwork. I must say that when he suggested to my hon. Friend the Member for Springburn (Mr. Emmott) that he had not read this re port, he did him a very severe injustice. I took the liberty of borrowing—I had almost said of purloining—his actual copy in order to refresh my own memory, and I have my hon. Friend's copy in my hand, underlined and underscored at every point, showing a most careful and meticulous study of it.

Earl WI NTERTON: Is that why my right hon. Friend was good enough to ask me privately if I could show him the place?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The Noble Lord—I am in the recollection of the Committee—referred particularly to paragraphs 32 and 33, and I was not quite sure whether I heard him aright. He then said, "Read down to paragraph so-and-so," and I was not quite clear as to what he had said. But I was quite able to find the place, because it was handed to me. I took the book from my hon. Friend when he had it open. But what is all the point of this interruption by the Noble Lord? Does he mean that I have not read the report? Is that what he is trying to suggest? I think it is rather unmannerly to criticise in this House the way in which Members give their time to the discharge of their duties. I am not aware that the record of the Noble Lord entitles him to any special distinction for perspicuity in the discharge of his public duties. If he has a claim to any special distinction in that respect, it has passed singularly unrewarded in his long career.

Mr. MOLSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the carefully annotated copy of the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Emmett) is his own copy or is the copy of the Noble Lady the Member for West Perth (Duchess of Atholl)?

Mr. EMMOTT: I think it is my own copy which the Noble Lady at some time or another has borrowed from me.

Mr. CHURCHILL: It is quite clear, Sir Dennis, that an apology is clue from the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Molson) to my hon. Friend the Member for Springburn (My. Emmott). The hon. Member for Doncaster asked me to give way in order that he might make an intervention, and now he is proved conclusively wrong on a matter of fact. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will get up and say that he was wrong.

Mr. MOLSON: I asked a question, and if the Noble Lady the Member for West Perth will say that property in the book vests in the hon. Member for Springburn, I will certainly apologise.

Mr. CHURCHILL: It is usual when an hon. Member makes a statement in this
House, as did the hon. Member for Springburn, for other hon. Members to accept his bona fides, especially in a matter of a personal character of that kind. Now that the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham has forced into the centre of our discussion this general question of dyarchy, I am bound to address myself to it. I do not agree that this is the only point where the question can be discussed; the vice of dyarchy runs throughout this Bill. That is the hideous blemish. That is the cause of the evils which we see and apprehend. Again and again I have heard dyarchy condemned. I have heard supporters of the Bill like Lord Lytton, with great experience, condemn it in unmeasured terms. There are the words of the Statutory Commission's Report, words of the greatest weight, declaring that this very thing that you are now doing at the centre is inadmissible, and giving weighty reasons why it is impracticable and full of vice. You are departing from the Report of the Statutory Commission and you have cast that upon one side, although it was agreed to by all parties. You have left that safe, sure ground and you have embarked upon the very precarious and unstable footing of the Round Table Conferences, the White Paper and the Joint Select Committee.
Compare the Report of the Statutory Commission and the way it deals with dyarchy with the jejune apologetics of the Joint Select Committee; look and see how the Statutory Commission approached this subject with a view to ascertaining the truth, while the Joint Select Committee approached it with a view to carrying out the policy which was put to them by the White Paper. They were, as has been properly stated, a body to find reasons for supporting preconceived conclusions. When you compare and read those passages, I wonder that the Noble Lord had the face to get up and draw any conclusions. He mentioned paragraph 32 of the Report of the Joint Select Committee. Here is the explanation of why the solid arguments of the Statutory Commission have been thrown over by the Joint Select Committee. Paragraph 32, which the Noble Lord mentioned, furnishes the reason. Here is the reason for the tergiversations of the hon. Member for Finchley (Mr. Cadogan) and of his catherine-wheel contortion on that.
subject. He was one associated with the weighty words of the Statutory Commission. As soon as he got into the Joint Select Committee he fell under the evil, ministerial influences with which that body was packed—hopelessly packed—and, of course, lacking the moral strength to stand against the tide and the prevailing currents of opinion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Perhaps I ought not to put it in that way. Shall I say, allowing himself to succumb too easily to the seduction of drifting with the sea and floating with the tide, if my hon. Friend will allow me to substitute those words for the others which I inadvertently used? What is the reason given for the desertion of the opinions of the Statutory Commission on the subject of dyarchy and the substitution of the opinions of the Joint Select Committee? It is this—and I am going to read only a sentence:
The Princes have … stated … that they are willing now to enter an All: India Federation—
and they insisted on responsibility. I wonder indeed that the Noble Lord should raise that point to-day, because he is like a man standing upon the trapdoor of a scaffold, leaning forward to draw the bolt and to precipitate himself, in hopeless logical and argumentative confusion, into the pit. The Noble Lord has certainly not helped the case of the Government by the intervention, which, however ardently intended, has not been a fortunate one.
We take the strongest exception to this Clause, although, until we were provoked by the Noble Lord, the discussion had been conducted in a very quiet and good-tempered spirit. Yet it would be a mistake to suppose that the greatest objection cannot be taken to this Clause, and we are bound to vote against it. We are bound to testify against it, as it embodies the principle of dyarchy. The position of the Viceroy we begin to see in detail in this Clause, how he is to combine his strong executive function with the delicate handling of Ministers. We see the different points of view brought to a collision in the very central organism of the Government, and we see this central organism racked and strained in this way and in that by all those innumerable stresses at the very moment that, over the whole expanse of
India, 11 provincial governments are being brought into existence. We are forced to express our repugnance and our destestation of this Clause at this time; it is certainly our duty to do so.
I do not intend to repeat upon this question arguments which I have used on Second Reading and at other times, but let the Committee realise quite clearly what they are going to do when they vote that this Clause stand part. They are introducing dyarchy into the centre of India on the sole pretext that the Princes wish to come in, which is not true, and that they have demanded responsibility. For that hon. Members are voting—for a basis which is going to be shorn from under their feet; for the establishment of a system so vicious that it has been condemned by every authority which has dealt with it, and by the highest authority which could be accepted in this House, namely, by our own Statutory Commission.

5.54 p.m.

Mr. CADOGAN: I have been taken to task not only by the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Emrnott) but also by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). Apparently I have been taken to task for admitting that I was wrong. Unlike the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping, I do not claim infallibility for the Report of the Statutory Commission; in fact, for years I became quite accustomed to our Report being regarded as anathema by all parties, and it is almost embarrassing to find that what was originally rejected has become the head and corner stone of everybody's argument. The hon. Member for Springburn did me the honour to read out some passages from a speech which I delivered a few days ago, when the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) quoted this very passage. The hon. Member for Spring-burn left out a passage of which I would like to remind him. I said that while admitting that the passage was somewhat categorical, we asserted it rather courageously because, on the Statutory Commission, we thought we had found some way of circumventing dyarchy. When our scheme was examined by the Joint Select Committee, the Joint Select Committee decided that, while in was not dyarchy in form, it was in fact. We were compelled to agree.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping has poured contumely upon my head for changing my mind; I suppose that the right hon. Gentleman has never changed his mind. At any rate, I can say this: It may have been somewhat of a shock to hear anyone admitting that he was wrong. I will not delay the Committee any longer because I understand that we are already behind-hand on our time limit. In spite of everything that has been said by the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Springburn, I still abide by the finding of the Joint Select Committee on the subject of dyarchy.

5.57 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: I do not intend to take up the time of the Committee for more than five minutes, but I ought in a sentence or two to comment upon the speech just delivered by my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). Let me congratulate him at once upon living up so effectively to the general proposition which he stated at the beginning of his speech, namely, that none of us should state more than one side of the case. It might be assumed from the right hon. Gentleman's speech that his conscience at any rate is clear; he and his friends will not touch the accursed thing called dyarchy. What is the real state of affairs? In the first place, they

suggest putting in the centre of the Government of India, if they had their way, the worst possible form of dyarchy, namely a complete gulf between the executive and the legislature. Secondly, they favour the proposition which is set out in the report of the Statutory Commission under which the Army in India would remain a part of the British Army and have no connection whatever with the Indian machinery of Government. What more outrageous form of dyarchy can you have than that? Surely this is the most conspicuous illustration of the catherine wheel of contortion—I think that was the right hon. Gentleman's expression—in his own line of argument. He supports a system of provincial administration in which the great subject of law and order would be divorced entirely from the responsible Government of the Provinces.

Let, therefore, the Committee note that while professing affection for a unitary Government both at the centre and in the Provinces, my right hon. Friend and his friends are really supporting a much mere extreme form of dyarchy than the form of dyarchy proposed in this Measure.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided Ayes, 234; Noes, 80.

Division No. 67.]
AYES.
[6.0 p.m.


Albery, Irving James
Clarry, Reginald George
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Colfox, Major William Philip
Fraser, Captain Sir Ian


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Fremantte, Sir Francis


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Cook, Thomas A.
Ganzonl, Sir John


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Cooke, Douglas
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton


Assheton, Ralph
Cooper, A. Duff
Gillett, Sir George Masterman


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Cranborne, Viscount
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Crooke, J. Smedley
Gluckstein, Louis Halle


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.


Beauchamp. Sir Brograve Campbell
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Goff, Sir Park


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Crossley, A. C.
Gower, Sir Robert


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd. N.)


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas


Blindell, James
Curry, A. C.
Grigg, Sir Edward


Boulton, W. W.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Grimston, R. V.


Bower, Commander Robert Tatton
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Guy, J. C. Morrison


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Hamilton, Sir R.W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)


Brass, Captain Sir William
Denman, Hon. R. R.
Hanbury, Cecil


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Denville, Alfred
Harris, Sir Percy


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Dickie, John P.
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenn'gt'n)


Buchan, John
Doran, Edward
Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Drewe, Cedric
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)


Butler, Richard Austen
Duckworth, George A. V.
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Duggan, Hubert John
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Dunglass, Lord
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Hopkinson, Austin


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Elmley, Viscount
Hornby, Frank


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Horobin, Ian M.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Howard. Tom Forrest


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J.A.(Birm., W.)
Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Iveagh, Countess of


James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Morrison, William Shepherd
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Janner, Barnett
Moss, Captain H. J.
Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine. C.)


Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Smithers, Sir Waldron


Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Munro, Patrick
Somervell, Sir Donald


Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Spans, William Patrick


Ker, J. Campbell
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
North, Edward T.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)


Kerr, Hamilton W.
O'Connor, Terence James
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Kirkpatrick, William M.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Stevenson, James


Knight, Holford
Ormiston, Thomas
Stones, James


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Orr Ewing, I. L.
Strauss, Edward A.


Law, Sir Alfred
Patrick, Colin M.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Leckie, J. A.
Peake, Osbert
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Leech, Dr. J. W.
Pearson, William G.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Lewis, Oswald
Petherick, M.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Liddall, Walter S.
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Summersby, Charles H.


Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Potter. John
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Llewellin, Major John J.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Lloyd, Geoffrey
Pybus, Sir John
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Radford, E. A.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)


Mabane, William
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)
Ramsay. T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Ramsbotham, Herwald
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


McCorquodale. M. S.
Rea, Walter Russell
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


McKie, John Hamilton
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


McLean, Major Sir Alan
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Watt, Major George Steven H.


McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
White, Henry Graham


Macpherson, Rt. Hon. Sir Ian
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Magnay, Thomas
Rickards, George William
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Ropner, Colonel L.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Mander, Geoffrey le M,
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col, Sir M.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Womersley, Sir Walter


Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Salmon, Sir Isldore
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Samuel. Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Savery, Samuel Servington
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.



Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Sir George Penny and Dr.




Morris-Jones.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Nunn, William


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Everard, W. Lindsay
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Alexander, Sir William
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Parkinson, John Allen


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Atholl, Duchess of
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Remer, John R.


Banfield, John William
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Batey, Joseph
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Groves, Thomas E.
Scone, Lord


Broadbent, Colonel John
Grundy, Thomas W.
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks., Newb'y)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)


Burnett, John George
Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A.(P'dd'gt'n, S.)


Carver, Major William H.
Kimball, Lawrence
Thorne, William James


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Knox, Sir Alfred
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Tinker, John Joseph


Courtauld. Major John Sewell
Lawson, John James
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Cove, William G.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Levy, Thomas
Wayland, Sir William A.


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lunn, William
Wells, Sydney Richard


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
West, F. R.


Daggar, George
McEntee, Valentine L.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Wilmot, John


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Mainwaring, William Henry
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Davison, Sir William Henry
Marsden, Commander Arthur



Dixey, Arthur C. N.
Maxton, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Donner, P. W.
Milner, Major James
Mr. John and Mr. Paling.


Edwards, Charles
Nicholson. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)



Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 10.—(other provisions as to ministers.)

6.10 p.m.

Sir CHARLES OMAN: I beg to move, in page 7, line 17, to leave out Subsection (2).
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill may be able to see his way to accept this very harmless proposal, and in that event it will not be necessary for any person who is chosen to be a minister to secure for himself
a place in one of the Houses of the Legislature. A person who is in every way qualified to be a minister and who has been selected by the Viceroy might well be a member of a minority, religious or otherwise, and might, therefore, find it impossible, within the short time given to him by this provision, to obtain a seat in either Chamber. Therefore, I wish to delete the Sub-section in order that such a minister may continue to serve the Viceroy in the capacity in which be has been chosen to serve on account of his particular usefulness, without having to get a seat in either Chamber.
This is not an unprecedented proposal. In a great many countries it is not necessary for ministers to sit in the House, though they may be called to the House to be questioned and make explanations and generally to take more or less a part in the work of the House. The best non-British precedent, of course, is that of the United States of America, where the ministers whom the President chooses do not sit either in the State or in the House of Representatives, and yet manage the ministerial business of that vast federation as well as it is managed. I move the Amendment in the hope that my right hon. Friend may look upon it with a kindly eye.

6.12 p.m.

Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: I have risen only to correct one misapprehension which perhaps the Committee might have gathered from the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University (Sir C. Oman). It is true that, in the United States, ministers in charge of departments not only do not have to be members of either House of Congress, but they are not able to appear before it. The result is most unsatisfactory in many ways. They are at a very great disadvantage. Everyone, I think, who has seen the system working at close quarters knows that it would be an advantage if they were at any rate allowed to address either House, and I think it would be a very great boon to them also to be members either of the Senate or of the House of Representatives. Therefore, I venture to say, with all due deference to my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University, that in this particular respect I believe his constitutional knowledge has gone wrong, and that it is a great
disadvantage, and not an advantage, that in the United States ministers are not members of one House or the other.
I can see some advantages that might follow from leaving out this Sub-section One would be that the man who might be chosen as a minister would not necessarily have to be nominated by some particular little group or other But at the same time I imagine that the almost universal opinion in India would be that they would regard the Subsection as a guarantee that they are really going to get responsible self-government at the centre. There may be some other advantages in omitting the Sub-section on which I am sure my hon. Friend afterwards will give his opinion. But I am convinced from what I have heard that the fact that ministers are members of one of the chambers will give some guarantee to those in India that they are to have really responsible self-government at the centre. It is, of course, open to those members who do not approve of responsible government at the centre, to support the omission of this Sub-section, but those who believe that responsible government at the centre should be given, must agree that it is essential that, at any rate in the early stages, even if the whole system is amended later, all the ministers should be members of one or other of the chambers in the Central Government.

6.16 p.m.

Sir EDWARD GRIGG: I am delighted at last to find myself able to take the same side in this argument as my old tutor in history, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University (Sir C. Oman). I do not think that the case which he put up has been met by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland). In the first place, under this Constitution by a later Clause—I think Clause 21—ministers whether members of a chamber or not, can in any case address either chamber, so that the American, parallel does not apply. When he went on to say that this is the only form in which responsible government can be worked out in India, he is ignoring an argument, forcibly put forward by the Statutory Commission, who pointed out:
It appears to us that there is a serious danger of development at the Centre, proceeding on wrong lines if the assumption
is made that the only form of responsible government which can ultimately emerge is one which closely imitates the British Parliamentary system.
I do not think that that case stated by the Simon Commission and argued by them has been argued by the Joint-Select Committee. The only argument advanced in the Joint Select Committee was that the original form of the report as presented to the Select Committee would have been unpopular in India, and that we must bow in this matter to Indian opinion. That, I agree, is a strong argument, but it does not seem to meet all the other arguments which may be advanced in this case. If Indian opinion is so strong, there is nothing to prevent the Viceroy, if this Amendment is carried, from selecting all his ministers from the legislature. All we suggest is that his hands should be left free now and in the future and that we ought not to deprive him of the freedom which a Prime Minister in this country still retains. In an emergency in this country the Prime Minister is able to have ministers who are not members of either chamber. That proved a great convenience and indeed a necessity during the War. Who knows that similar emergencies may not arise in India?
Not only that, but under our system the Prime Minister really has a greater freedom in the fact that he can choose ministers from the House of Lords, and in case of need he can ask the Sovereign to raise to the Peerage a person whom he desires to make a minister. Under this provision the Viceroy's hands would be tied in that respect. It is true that he has at the outset six nominations to the Council of State but I think his nominees retire in rotation, and that after the appointment of the first six, be will only have the power of appointing two every three years. I do not think that that power will meet the case. This is a matter on which the division in the Joint Select Committee was not a division between those in favour of the majority recommendations and those in favour of what is now called the Salisbury Report. I think the Chairman and the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy)—I am sorry he is not in his place—also voted against the provision which is inserted in the Bill.

Sir S. HOARE: indicated dissent.

Sir E. GRIGG: I will not insist upon that. At any rate the chairman brought in the original report the proposal in which was not the proposal in the Bill but was the proposal that has been put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University. I believe we shall be making a grave mistake if we incorporate this provision in the Bill. I am speaking as a friend of the Bill, us a profound believer in the Bill and as one who does not want to see a provision introduced which is likely to hamper and perhaps prejudice the successful working of the Constitution. I believe that the insertion of this provision might in the future gravely aggravate what are bound to be the two great difficulties of this Constitution in regard to the Central Government. One of these—it has been insisted upon by the Joint Select Committee—will he the struggle of the Provinces for their share of the central revenue. That is bound to be the central struggle when the estimates come up for consideration. In the form in which the central legislature, the Assembly, is being constituted, under a system of indirect election, a member must be either the nominee of a State ruler or the nominee of a comparatively small communal or provincial group, and he will depend for his political life—and all members of this Committee know what that means—he will depend for re-election on the satisfaction which he is able to give to the group which has nominated him in the provincial Chamber or in his own State.
Of necessity, under indirect election, you are going to have a body of men absolutely dependent on comparatively small groups in the Provinces and the States for their political lives. That is going to make the struggle for what can be spared from the central revenue, much graver and more acute. The Viceroy will be compelled to choose ministers who are members of one or other group of this kind, and it seems to me that to tie his hands in this way will militate greatly against his discharging the instruction given to him in the Instrument of Instructions to produce a Ministry, if he can, which has a real sense of joint responsibility.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: Would the hon. Gentleman be inclined to change his posi-
tion if we could get our Amendment carried later, to substitute direct for indirect election?

Sir E. GRIGG: Very much. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has made that interruption. I think that this situation is gravely affected by the fact that indirect election has been introduced. The struggle between the nominees of the Provinces is bound to be much greater as a result of that system. I am not sure that I agree with the hon. Gentleman that direct election would be better than indirect—

The CHAIRMAN: We must be very careful to avoid discussing that question yet.

Sir E. GRIGG: I am sorry that I was led away by the interruption. When I was interrupted I was about to say that it is idle to appeal to one's own personal experiences in connection with a matter of this kind but it may be of some value to the Committee to recall what happened in the early years of the working of the Australian Constitution. I was there as a traveller, on and off, a good deal at that time, and if the Federal Ministry at that time had been constituted from men all representative of groups in the State Parliaments I do not believe that that Federation could possibly have worked. If hon Members look at the early history of the Canadian Federation and the struggle between the Federation and the Provinces in those early years, they will realise the intense danger of exacerbating or exaggerating or intensifying in any way this struggle between the Provinces for what they may claim of the crumbs from the Federal table.
That is, however, only part of the ground on which I support the Amendment. I support it also because it seems to me that this provision, if adopted, is bound to increase what everybody knows are going to be the difficulties of working a system of dyarchy. Dyarchy is inevitable but that subject was discussed on the last Clause and I do not wish to return to it. It presents difficulties, and my contention is that this provision, if insisted upon, is going to increase its difficulties. The Governor-General has to find, if he can, a team of Indian Ministers who will work with him and his counsellors in preserving intact the essential services and powers which are reserved.
If he has always to draw his Indian Ministers from a chamber constituted largely of nominees of provincial groups, he is going to find it much harder to prevent the creation of a ministry which will be identified with the legislature in challenging the reserved services and the reserved powers under the dyarchical system. In fact that system seems bound to identify the ministry with the Legislature, rather than with the Viceroy, whatever the issue may be, and clearly in this matter we want to give the Viceroy Indian ministers who will take a broad view of Indian necessities, and will be prepared to support the Viceroy in the exercise of essential powers. I think, as the Constitution develops, it is much more likely that they may be drawn—if his hands are left free to choose—from men with real authority in India as a whole and respected by India as a whole, and not from men who have merely commended themselves to this or that group in this or that Province.
Further, I would ask why we should, in this way, by laying down this provision, commit India finally to our own line of Parliamentary development? It may not suit India at all. Many of us feel that it is not likely to suit India. The Simon Commission argued, I think powerfully, and the case has not been met by the Joint Select Committee, that responsible government might welt develop on rather different lines in India from those on which it has developed here. We always assume that you can only have responsible government on our own lines. We always, in reply to any argument on this subject, produce the dilemma between the irremovable executive and the irresponsible legislature. Our experience on that matter is really not conclusive. It is based almost entirely on cases in which an imported and alien executive has had to deal with a native legislature. Of course the difficulties are much greater in cases of that kind but those difficulties have not arisen in other cases in which the executive has been just as indigenous as the legislature. The difficulties are never so great in such cases.
When you say that a system of responsible government, in which Indians have a full share, cannot be built up under any system which does not compel the Viceroy to draw his ministers from the legislature, are you not forgetting the ex
perience of nearly every other country in Europe? The German Empire was built up to its greatness between 1871 and 1914 on a system under which ministers had to get the approval of the legislature for all the main branches of their policy but under which they were not themselves members of the legislature or responsible to it, although they were able to speak in it. The conditions of Germany resemble conditions in India more closely than ours do. The parallel is not exact but the resemblance is great and it is worth remembering that when Germany adopted the system laid down in this provision of the Bill, in the Weimar Constitution, the Parliamentary system collapsed altogether. I think by committing India to this line of Parliamentary development prematurely we are taking a great risk which we ought not to take. I have referred to Germany. The same experience has been felt in Italy. Parliamentary government collapsed in Italy, largely because ministries were never able to deal with the legislature. The same difficulty is now apparent in France. The trouble in France is that the legislature has so much encroached on the responsibilities of the executive that it is doubtful whether effective government can be carried on.
With these examples before us, why do we insist that there cannot be effective responsible government except on the lines which are being pursued in these Islands, where, after all, our conditions are exceptional and our political experience exceptional, too? The system of an executive not responsible to a legislature may, I think, accord more closely with Indian experience than any system of ours. In India the traditional method is the Durbar. The traditional method is for the ruler to hear everything his subjects may have to say and then to give his decision, but that method of conducting a government would be modified under this Bill by insisting that the legislature must actually vote the measures which a government wishes to pass. The traditional Durbar method in India is a very strong argument for allowing them, at any rate, freedom to develop on their own lines, and not necessarily on the same lines as ourselves. I go further and say—and this is my last point, and I would, say this to the right hon. Gentleman—we are not asking that the
Viceroy should be in any way compelled to choose ministers from outside the legislature. We are only asking that his hands should not be tied and that he should be left the same freedom in the future as, in fact, the Prime Minister in this country possesses.
It is true that this Clause of the Bill follows the recent constitutions of Australia and South Africa, but it is not in the Canadian constitution, it is not in the British North America Act, and it is no part of our constitution, and it has been disregarded when necessary. I believe that if you gave the Viceroy this freedom, in spite of Indian opinion at the present moment, he might not need to exercise it, but the fact that he possessed it would make it very much easier for him to bring his ministers together and secure that joint responsibility which everybody knows to be so greatly desired. I am an absolutely convinced supporter of this Bill, but I regard this provision as a dangerous flaw in it, and as a thing which makes the success of the Bill far more doubtful than it would otherwise be. For that reason I would appeal to my right hon. Friend to consider whether freedom and discretion on this point cannot be left to the Viceroy.

6.33 p.m.

Mr. LANSBURY: We pride ourselves on this occasion upon being in disagreement with the Conservative opposition to the Bill. We shall be able on this occasion to demonstrate our impartiality in considering this matter. I have seldom heard a speech with which I more thoroughly disagree than that delivered by the hon. Member for Altrincham (Sir H. Grigg). He may have had a much greater experience of other parts of the world than I have had, but I do not know that he has of India. Still his experience carries a great deal of weight. The argument in favour of this Amendment is brought down to this, that elected persons are those who cannot be trusted. I listened very carefully to the hon. Member for Altrincham, and his argument appeared to be that the Governor-General should have the right to select persons from outside Parliament who would be looked up to and respected by everybody in the country. I have seen something like that operated in this country, and the persons so selected have never had my respect or the respect of a good many of my friends. But let us apply
the principle to this House. Would anyone there say in normal circumstances—I am not discussing now the question of war time or some great national emergency, but the ordinary days in which we are now living—that the Government of the country would better be chosen from persons outside Parliament than from inside Parliament? I cannot understand the reason for all this argument against elected persons in India. It is said by the hon. Gentleman that they are persons who are put forward by different groups of people. We are all put forward by different groups of people, and I know it is said that it is not quite the same. I have beard of people being selected because they supported total abstinence and prohibition.

Sir E. GRIGG: The right hon. Gentleman is really arguing that there is no difference between a system of direct and indirect election, and I am sure that be will not be able to sustain that argument when he comes to that point.

Mr. LANSBURY: The persons who are elected, even through indirect election, will be elected by people in the Provinces, and the argument is that the elected persons in the Provinces, because of differences of view, will not be fit to be trusted.

Sir E. GRIGG: indicated dissent.

Mr. LANSBURY: The whole argument was that 'they would not be looked up to with so much respect as if the Viceroy or Governor-General selected them. I do not agree with that point of view at all; nor do my hon. Friends. I think that the persons who are indirectly elected will be more representative of public opinion than those selected simply by the Governor-General. The argument that there is some analogy between the choice by the Prime Minister in this country does not hold. In normal conditions Parliament would not tolerate Ministers who were not members of this assembly or the other place. There is no analogy at all about that. The other point I should like to put about this Clause is, will there be anyone in the position of a Prime Minister in this Cabinet; will there be one man who can, as it were, speak for them and—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): I think that the right hon. Gentleman had better raise that ques-
tion on the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." We are rather severely restricted as to whether Ministers shall be or shall not be members of the Legislature. That is the rather narrow point of the Amendment.

Sir E. GRIGG: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to ask him one other question? Can he inform me whether the Solicitor-General in the first Labour Government was at any time a member of this House or the other House?

Mr. LANSBURY: I am not sure whether, in the first Labour Government, it was not the Lord Advocate. Our Government was turned out too soon to get him a seat. I believe he was a Conservative, so we were very glad that he did not get one. It is certain that if the Labour Government had remained in office the Lord Advocate would have had to find a seat, because there were continual questions put by hon. Gentlemen opposite who were then on this side of the House, showing that it was considered quite wrong, and it is quite wrong. The Attorney-General, I am sure, will agree that Ministers must, under normal conditions, be Members of this House or the other place, and that is all I am asking in regard to this question.
I cannot raise the other point. I think that persons elected by the provincial bodies are likely to be much more representative of public opinion than persons selected by the Governor-General. I agree with the hon. Member that this arrangement of imposing a cast-iron constitution is wrong. If the Indian people had been consulted, I believe they would very likely have given an entirely different opinion. But the Government and the majority of the House have decided otherwise, and I think that the hon. Gentleman voted with them, so that he must not complain about what India might have done, or what it might have been better for us to have done rather than imposing this European or British system of Government upon the Indian peoples.

6.41 p.m.

Viscount WOLMER: I want to make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, because I do not believe that his object is really any different from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg),
who made such an interesting speech. I think that we all in this House agree that the intention of the Bill is that Ministers should normally be members of both British legislatures. We are confronted with two difficulties. In the first place, the right hon. Gentleman is imposing a written constitution, and therefore there is not that elasticity that an unwritten constitution would have. Secondly, you are up against the very practical difficulties which my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham pointed out. It is not a question here of saying that non-elected Members are more fitted to be ministers than elected members. It is the practical difficulties which may occur in forming a Government. It has already been pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman that his own first Government had a Lord Advocate who was never a member of this House, although that Government held office for more than six months. I think that I am right in saying that the same thing was true of the Conservative Government in the Parliament of 1923. The Lord Advocate never had a seat in this House during the whole of that Parliament. That is my recollection, but in any case I am sure that If you searched the history of this country for the last hundred years you would probably find half a dozen or a dozen cases where Ministers, for one reason or another, were outside the House, owing to exceptional circumstances, no doubt. All that we want to do in the Amendment is to give the Indian Constitution that sort of elasticity that the British Constitution has got.
I want to make a practical suggestion to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, whether we cannot agree to accept the Amendment and put it in the Instrument of Instructions to the Viceroy and to the Governors that their ministers shall normally be Members of either Chamber, but that, if in exceptional circumstances it is the opinion of the Viceroy that a suitable Ministry cannot be formed without the breaking of the normal rule, he shall have power to do it. I think that that would meet the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham perfectly well. There should be no departure from the normal rule, but if you put it in the Instrument of
Instructions instead of the Act of Parliament, you would give that elasticity which, in times of difficulty and crisis, might be very important indeed.

6.45 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: Perhaps it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I give briefly the history of this question. It is a question which has been considered time after time. First of all there was the Statutory Commission. They considered a variety of alternatives for a non-Parliamentary Minister. They considered the possibility of having a Minister of this kind for the Police and then considered the more general proposition and made a very tentative suggestion that where the other Ministers wished for a Minister of this kind such a Minister might be appointed, leaving it optional and dependent upon the desire of the other Ministers.

Sir E. GRIGG: The actual proposals of the Simon Commission in this respect were directed to a system at the Centre, which was extremely difficult to work. There was a tentative effort to arrive at some system of collaboration with the Indian States, but more important than the actual proposals that they put forward is the argument which they advanced on this subject.

Sir S. HOARE: That does not really affect the matter, but let me come back to the history of the case. There was this very tentative and very conditional suggestion made by the Statutory Commission. Then followed discussions with the Indians at the Round Table Conference and we found that, rightly or wrongly, every Indian—I do not think there was a single Indian of a contrary opinion—was violently against this proposition. They were violently against it because they thought that it was the thin end of the wedge for reintroducing the official block. That may be a good reason or it may be a bad reason, but it certainly was a very strong reason in the minds of the Indian delegates. Then came the Joint Select Committee. They considered this question. We considered all the kind of issues that have been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg). It is disclosing no confidence when I say that a good many members of the Committee at one time were attracted towards the proposal, and I was instructed to make inquiries from the Government of
India and from the Provincial Governments as to their views on the question. Every one of those Governments, the Government of India and every single one of the Provincial Governments were against it.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: Against what?

Sir S. HOARE: Against the proposition urged by the hon. Member for Altrincham. They said, "It will not work unless it has the approval of the Ministry. You will never have the approval of the Ministry because we, the Government of India, and we, the Provincial Governments, do not contemplate any possibility of an Indian Ministry ever agreeing to a Minister of that kind." Having regard to these very strong views, the Joint Select Committee came to the conclusion that it was not worth while press-a proposition that certainly was not going to be accepted and that was not going to work. More so, because I believe that under the provisions of the Bill and under the Joint Select Committee we seek to meet almost all the contingencies to which allusion has been made in the course of this Debate, and we meet them in the Federal Centre. It is with the Federal Centre that we are now dealing.
In the Federal Centre there is a Second Chamber. In that Chamber there are a number of nominated members. It is possible for the Governor-General, if need be, to use one of his nominations for an appointment of this kind. I suggest that to the Committee as much the best way to meet a case in which the Governor-General and the Ministers require the services of someone who is not already a member of the Federal Assembly. By that method you will be achieving the end which I believe is in the minds of a good many hon. Members this afternoon, and you will not be raising an unnecessary issue that will set against you, quite needlessly, large bodies of political opinion in India. For these reasons I suggest to the Committee that this is not a great question with issues of principle at stake. A Minister has a period of six months before he need become a member of one or other of the Chambers. In the case of the Federal Legislature if he fails to obtain a seat in the Assembly or if he does not wish to stand for the Assembly he can obtain a nomination for a nominated seat in the Second Chamber. That being so, it is better
to follow the advice, reached after a long period of investigation, of the Joint Select Committee and not to adopt a proposal, however attractive it may be at first sight, which certainly would not work but would undoubtedly raise up against it great bodies of Indian political opinion.

6.52 p.m.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I found myself very much in agreement with the hon. Member for Altrincham, and if I had not served on the Joint Select Committee I might have been swayed by his argument. There can be no doubt that at the beginning a good many members of the Joint Select Committee held the view that there should be complete freedom of opportunity to the Governor-General and the Provincial Governors, but that view was gradually overborne by the tremendously strong opinion held by the Indian delegates. I would ask hon. Members to recall that we already had to defend these proposals against criticism in India. The suggestion has been made that we have moved more and more to the right, that we have moved more and more away from their requests and their position and, although I do not think that this is a very important matter, I am sure that if a concession is now made it will be regarded as an important matter in India. The alteration would be taken as one made to meet white opinion, or the opinion of the right in this country, and I think that it would render the Bill less acceptable in India. It may be said that there is already objection in India, and I admit that. Whatever may be the existing objection, I do not want to strengthen it. The fundamental consideration in all our discussions is Indian consent. That has been set out in terms in the White Paper and in terms in the report of the Joint Select Committee, and I want us to secure it now, but I think that the carrying of this Amendment would put that consent further off.

Sir A. KNOX: What about opinion in this country?

Mr. FOOT: I attach great importance to the opinion of this House and of this country, but the ultimate argument and the ultimate decision surely rests with the people who have to live under the Constitution that we are seeking to set up.

Viscount WOLMER: Does the hon. Gentleman now suggest that? He voted against us when we proposed that Federation should not come into force until the Indian Legislature had approved it.

Mr. FOOT: When I spoke before I clearly stated that in the end unless you have the consent of the people of India and their will to work it, your scheme can never work. That is the final test. If you can get a sufficient number of people in that country to say that they will work the scheme, that is the final test. If you cannot get that, all your work will come to nothing in the end It is because I want that consent that I should not like to see an Amendment carried which would be seized upon at once, especially by those who are out to defeat the scheme in India, and who would say that we had made a concession and opened the door again to the official block. The official block has come in for a good deal of criticism in recent years. In spite of the arguments advanced by those who support the Amendment I would ask the Committee not to pass an Amendment which would tend to alienate the sympathy and the consent upon which we must rely if this Measure is ultimately to succeed.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I would remind the Committee that we are working under an agreement and I would ask hon. Members not to continue the Debate unnecessarily.

6.57 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I do not want to detain the Committee. I only rise because I thought that I heard the Secretary of State say that the Statutory Commission only made a tentative suggestion that there might be a nominated Minister, with the consent of the other Ministers. I should like to quote to the Committee what the Statutory Commission said:
We are unanimous in presenting the view that Provincial dyarchy should now come to an end in the sense that a unitary government should be established, composed of members appointed by the Governor, and that the Statute should be in such form as to make it possible for such a government to include an element drawn from official or other non-elected sources.
If my right hon. Friend says that the Provincial Governments did not want that, I would point out that four Provincial Governments were in favour of a
government composed in that sort of way.

6.58 p.m.

Lord SCONE: My excuse for asking the Committee to bear with me for a short time is that my name appears second on the Amendment. The Secretary of State in his remarks, if he will pardon my saying so, seems to have neglected one very glaringly obvious fact, namely, that the whole condition that we seek to set up is permissive and not obligatory. We ask that in very special circumstances some Minister could be chosen who is not a member of the Legislature. Perhaps I might refresh the memory of the Leader of the Opposition as to what happened in the first Socialist Government of 1923, and I think the Committee will then realise that there are times when such an appointment is of the utmost value. May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that when the first Socialist Government was set up there was no Member of the Socialist party in this House, or in the country, capable of becoming Lord Advocate for Scotland. The result was that the Socialist Government had to accept the offer of Mr. Macmillan, K.C., now Lord Macmillan, who became a strictly non-political Lord Advocate for Scotland. The result was that during the brief period of office of that Socialist Government legal administration in Scotland was satisfactory. It was very different in England.

The DEPUTY- CHAIRMAN: We cannot on this Amendment go into what happened in the Socialist Government. The Noble Lord may state facts as an illustration why the Amendment should be accepted, but he must not go beyond that.

Lord SCONE: I bow to your Ruling. I only want to say that the provision in our Constitution which enables a Minister to be outside the legislature was of the utmost value to the Socialist Government on that occasion, and if the same thing had been done in regard to the English Law Officers their Government would not have fallen so soon. In these circumstances, and because all we seek is to make this permissive and not obligatory, I do hope that the right hon. Gentleman and the Government will reconsider their decision

Captain CAZALET: In regard to the six members whom the Viceroy is entitled to nominate to the Council of State, I presume that one-third of those would have to retire every three years? Suppose one of them was a minister during that period—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We had better deal with that point when we reach it in the Bill.

7.2 p.m.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: I should like to make one point which has not yet been raised. In the first place the Secretary of State pointed out that the Governor-General always has the power of nominating members and it seems to me quite obvious that this meets the whole of the object of the Amendment we are discussing, as far as I understand it. Certainly the right hon. Gentleman's speech was very clear on that point. When we are setting up a Constitution and creating ministers of this kind it seems clear that the very best thing for all ministers is to have to meet an Assembly every now and then. That does bring them into direct contact with affairs. In bringing them into the Federal Legislature we bring them into direct contact with other people who are in touch with the country. Nothing deteriorates ministers more than to have a weak Opposition; and nothing improves a Ministry more than a strong Opposition. I say quite frankly that for the British Parliament to set up a Constitution in any part of the world without subjecting the largest part of the Ministry to official Opposition in some form or another would be a perfect travesty of any sort of democratic government, as I understand it. I hope most sincerely that the Government will stand by this part of their Bill.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

7.5 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Before we part with the Clause I should like to ask one or two questions of the Secretary of State. We had an Amendment on the Order Paper in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) which was not moved and what we are concerned with is in substance the point I made on a previous Clause. We are
rather anxious that when the Governor-General proceeds to nominate his ministers or to choose his ministers, he should first proceed as we proceed here, that is, that he should proceed to select the person who is most likely to carry a majority of the Assembly with him. In other words, we are anxious at the very beginning to start something on the lines of what we in this country call Cabinet responsibility. In order to establish it we want to know, in connection with this Clause, whether the Governor-General in making his inquiries as to how he will form his Ministry, will consult, in the first place, the person most likely to be able to meet the House with a majority at his back.
Assuming that the answer to that question is in the affirmative, is it open to that person, whom I shall call for the purpose of the argument the prospective Prime Minister, to choose his Ministers as may seem to him best and to fill the various offices so that he may have a sort of homogeneous Ministry, drawn together because they are in accord in relation to common policy? If that is not the proposal, I very much fear we shall perhaps secure a Ministry not welded together by any common purpose or policy but drawn together in a more haphazard way and seeking to placate, not political groups as such, but seeking rather to placate members of religious groups as such. If we get that kind of communal division in such a Ministry, then, obviously, we are far from embarking on the sort of corporate responsibility we are accustomed to have in this country. I wonder if the Secretary of State would be good enough to give us a little further light as to the object the Government have in mind in submitting this Clause to the Committee.

7.7 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: It is impossible to dogmatise about the future. Nobody can say exactly how these things will develop. Nobody can say, for instance, how collective responsibility is going to develop. Collective responsibility is not something that you can achieve by Statute. It is something that has got to grow up in actual practice. It is no good denying the fact that there are peculiar difficulties in India in the way of collective responsibility. For instance, there are communal differences, and so
on. Our general view is, first of all, to leave the development as open as we can, and in that respect we are following in this Clause almost verbatim the wording of the Clauses in several of the other Constitution Acts of the Empire. I think this Clause follows almost exactly the wording of the British North America Act, and some of the other Constitution Acts. At the same time we state in Paragraph 8 of the Instrument of Instructions the kind of way in which we hope things will develop, and I cannot do better than read Paragraph 8 to the Committee:
In making appointments to his Council of Ministers Our Governor-General shall use his best endeavours to select his Ministers in the following manner, that is to say, in consultation with the person who, in his judgment, is most likely to command a stable majority in the Legislature.…
That answers one of the hon. Member's points. The latter part of the paragraph answers a second. It runs:
… to appoint those persons (including so far as practicable representatives of the Federated States and members of important minority communities) who will best be in a position collectively "—
I emphasise the word "collectively"—
to command the confidence of the Legislature. But, in so acting, he shall bear constantly in mind the need for fostering a sense of joint responsibilitiy among his Ministers.
I think that paragraph answers substantially the questions put to me by the hon. Member.

7.12 p.m.

Mr. LEWIS: Before passing from this Clause I should like to say a word on that aspect of it which many of us who support the Bill consider to be of first-rate importance. It is proposed to give the Indians working the Federal system the opportunity of enjoying the advantages of ministerial responsibility as we understand it in this country. There has been a certain amount of scorn poured on that suggestion here this afternoon. Hon. Members ask why we should be so pleased with our own particular system. I cannot say that I am impressed by the alternatives they put before us. The hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir C. Oman) quoted the system of ministerial appointments in America. The right hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) pointed out that in
the view of instructed opinion in America our own method is considerably to be preferred. The hon. Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg) gave us some examples of experience in other countries, and spoke of effective responsible government. After all, we want to give India a system which will last. When you compare the way our system endures with the way in which those systems to which the hon. Member for Altrincham referred have passed away, there is much to say for our system. I take it that the hon. Member for Altrincham would not suggest that the present system of Government either in Germany or Italy was effective responsible government.

Sir E. GRIGG: I made the point that the system in Germany collapsed only when they amended it so as to conform with our Parliamentary methods here.

Mr. LEWIS: Yes, but the hon. Gentleman does not deny that they amended it, and that they were dissatisfied with it. We do not want to set up in India a system which will require amendment. I think we are wise in seeking to give India an opportunity of enjoying the same methods that we follow here. There is, of course, this difficulty. We are producing a Bill, and the constitution will be within the covers of that Bill, whereas we in our own practical day-to-day experience are working under a system which cannot he found within the covers of any Bill. It is government partly by Statute and partly by convention. The very point we discussed a little while ago as to whether Ministers should be members of either House was a good illustration. There is no law in this country which makes it necessary for a Minister of the Crown to be a Member of either House. Despite examples given to us this afternoon of the appointments of Law Officers who were not Members of either House, it is well known to us all that it is a strong and effective convention of the Constitution that Ministers appointed who have not already got a seat in either House must get one. The reason is, of course, that in our view the advantage of the interplay between the Executive and the Legislature which we enjoy by that system outweighs the disadvantage of limited choice.
It has been asked why we should not insist upon the Governor-General having
a wider choice. I, for one, am not impressed by that argument. The same thing is true in this country. No one suggests that it would not be possible in this country to find men as capable as, and in some cases more capable than, some Ministers in the Government. We have forgone that width of choice in exchange for the benefit of the interaction of the Executive and the Legislature. I am very glad the Government have had the courage in this Clause to endeavour to reproduce that system so far as it can be applied to the Federal system.

7.15 p.m.

Major COLFOX: I had hoped to have made a few observations on the last Amendment, but when you, Mr. Chairman, appealed to the Committee to come to an early conclusion I did not persist in my endeavours to catch your eye. In my judgment, it is a pity that the Government should insist on the retention of Sub-section (2) because in so doing they have limited the scope of the Governor-General in the choice of ministers. I recognise that, whether that Sub-section is ill the Bill or not, the common practice in the future in India, as it is the case here, must be that ministers should be members of one house or the other. But it is a pity that at the beginning of this new constitution it should be so stereotyped and fettered. It would be much better to leave it more elastic. It may be that when the constitution has been in operation for some years the custom will be to make it incumbent on every minister to be a member of one house or the other, but for the present it would have been wiser to have left the matter undecided, and find out which procedure is most suitable after some years of experience.
The Secretary of State has told us that it is quite possible for the Governor-General to nominate as one of his six nominees any one whom he chooses to be a minister and he suggested that this was frequently done under our own constitution and that when a minister was elected who was not a member of this house he was sent to the other house. The appointments to our upper house are unlimited in number. The appointments to the upper house under this federal constitution will be strictly limited, and I can well imagine a case arising of the Governor-General having already appointed his six nominees wanting to
appoint as a minister someone who was not a member of either house. There would be no vacancy, and it might be that this was a person who in the opinion of the Governor-General was just the right man for the job. He would find himself unable to get a seat in either house. I regret that the Government have seen fit to retain the Sub-section. In my opinion, it is a blemish on an otherwise excellent provision.

Captain CAZALET: The question I desire to put is whether when one-third of the six members to be nominated by the Governor-General retire, as they will have to do, they are available for re-nomination by the Viceroy. If they are, then the question as to whether the Viceroy has power to nominate a minister outside the assembly is completely answered.

Sir S. HOARE: I can answer that question in a single sentence. They can be nominated.

7.18 p.m.

Sir E. GRIGG: I am not going to disregard the Chairman's appeal to the Committee to get on with the Bill, but I should like to make one or two observations on the speech of the Secretary of State. He began his reply by saying that no one can dogmatise on the future of India. That is precisely what we are asking him not to do by leaving out Sub-section (2). In retaining it he is dogmatising about the future of India. He is insisting that India shall follow a particular line of development, whether it suits India or not. I should have thought that this might have been left to the Instrument of Instructions, as it seems to me that Article 8 completely answers the point put by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Oswald Lewis). It lays down that the ministers shall be such as to command a stable majority of the Assembly, whether they are members of it or not. I hope the Secretary of State will show some readiness to reconsider this matter, especially in view of the fact that nominees of the Viceroy in the Council of State will not in my opinion carry the same authority in the legislature as those who are elected or who have become ministers because of their general authority and position in India. I hope this Sub-section will be reconsidered before the Bill becomes law.

7.19 p.m.

Major MILNER: We have two strong objections to the Clause. During the short time that I spent in India one statement was constantly reiterated to me, and that was that Indians had the strongest possible objection to government from Whitehall. This Clause is a striking instance of how in the future the Government still intend to govern India from Whitehall. One has only to look at Sub-section (5) of the Clause, relating to the functions of the Governor-General, to notice that they are to be exercised at his discretion, but if you turn to Clause 14 it is clear that where the expression "in his discretion" appears in the Bill the Governor-General is then under the general control of the Secretary of State and has to comply with any directions which may be given him by the Secretary of State. That is government from Whitehall in excelsis, and it is the one thing to which the Indian population take strong exception. Further, the Clause is also a striking instance of the autocratic powers which are being conferred on the Governor-General. There is no approach in any way to responsibility or democracy. Take Sub-section (1). Ministers are to be appointed by the Governor-General.

Sir S. HOARE: The wording of this Clause follows almost exactly the wording of the British North America Act and other constitutions. It is a constitutional phrase which appears in all of them.

Major MILNER: The Secretary of State will agree that that does not affect the validity of my argument. If these provisions appear in any other constitution they are equally repugnant to my friends and myself. Ministers are, first, to be chosen by the Governor-General, then summoned by him, sworn by him, and they are to hold office during his sole pleasure. The whole thing is completely autocratic from start to finish, and there is no approach to democracy or responsibility in any shape or form.

Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON: Does not the same thing happen in this country in the case of the monarch?

Major MILNER: I do not propose to be drawn away on that argument, but everyone knows that in this country the King acts on the advice of his Ministers.
In this case the Governor-General acts at his own discretion, which means that he acts under the orders of the Secretary of State. We take strong objections to the Clause.

CLAUSE 11.—(Provisions as to external affairs, defence and ecclesiastical affairs.)

7.27 p.m.

Mr. GORDON MACDONALD: I beg to move, in page 7, line 36, to leave out "and ecclesiastical affairs."
Whatever defence there may be for granting these enormous powers to the Governor-General in certain directions, we are of the opinion that it cannot be justified as regards ecclesiastical affairs. The Clause makes this one of the reserved subjects. It gives to the Governor-General the power to call for the money necessary to carry on religious activities throughout the whole of India. We have no objection to the religious administration in the army, it may be necessary, and perhaps more necessary there than anywhere else, but we feel that it is unfair to call upon the masses of the people of India to be financially responsible for the teaching of a religion which they do not accept, indeed, which they disbelieve and deny. That is what this Clause means. It will compel millions of Mohammedans and Indians, who do not accept the Christian religions, to be financially responsible for the teaching of that religion in India. We fail to see how this can be justified. People should pay for their religion if they desire it, but it is wrong to ask anyone else to pay for their religion. It is a costly item. I hope the Secretary of State will let us know how much is really involved. We are uncertain. Some people say that it is limited to the religious teaching in the Army, and others that it includes all religious teaching in India of a Christian character. In December last, when an hon. Member asked how many religious teachers were on pension, he was told that the number was two, and that the amount of pension they received was about £1,000 for the two. Our only point in raising this matter is that we have no objection to ecclesiastical affairs being a matter for consideration, but we take objection to Indians, who do not accept the
Christian religions, being made financially responsible for the teaching of religions which they do not accept.

7.29 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: I hope that I shall be able to satisfy the hon. Member. Ever since the East Indian Company first went to India there has always been a provision for the chaplains of any British Army in India and any British services in India. It has always been recognised by every succeeding Government that it was an obligation upon us not only to provide the proper material conditions for the Army and the services in India, but also to provide them with adequate spiritual ministrations. Speaking generally, the position to-day is that the expenditure of the ecclesiastical department covers, first, the chaplains for the Army, and, secondly, the chaplains for the services where the services need spiritual ministration. There was the question whether, that being so, it was necessary to have a separate reservation of the ecclesiastical department, whether it could not be regarded as one of the branches either of the reserved defence department, or as part of the Army and the money voted for the service. On the whole we thought it was better to deal with the ecclesiastical department as it is dealt with in the Bill. We have always made it clear that we did not contemplate the ecclesiastical department going over a wider field than we have described, namely, speaking generally, ministration for the services and for the Army, and in order to show that that is our view in Clause 33, Sub-section (3, e), we give the limit of money that can be expended in the Department. We say that it shall not exceed 42 lakhs of rupees. As far as we can judge the expenditure is likely to fall rather than rise, and in any case it will not exceed that amount. I hope that that statement has satisfied the hon. and gallant Member.

Mr. G. NICHOLSON: Does that expenditure include Christian cemeteries and burial grounds?

Sir S. HOARE: I think it does, but I will let my hon. Friends have an answer later.

Mr. G. MACDONALD: Would the Secretary of State give us the amount in English money?

Sir S. HOARE: Roughly it is something over £200,000 a year.

Mr. T. SMITH: Is that exclusive of pension charges?

7.33 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I am afraid that I cannot accept the right hon. Gentleman's answer as adequate. I for one, in common with my colleagues on the Joint Select Committee, took strong exception to this particular provision whereby the ecclesiastical department should become a reserved department. There are many grounds upon which I and my friends took objection to it. I will recall some of the terms in which we drafted a report upon this matter. In Volume 1, Part II, page 275, we say:
While we are prepared to accept the proposition that so long as we have an Army in India their spiritual needs should be provided for, we cannot see why this can only or best be achieved by the proposal of the White Paper to retain the ecclesiastical department permanently as a special reserved department of the Government of India. We think it would be very much better to abolish this department and include religions ministrations as an integral part of the Army administration. We would go further and propose that as long as we have an Army and services in India whose spiritual needs are entirely different from those of the peoples amongst whom they serve, it would be a gracious act on our part if the necessary expenses were placed on British instead of on Indian revenues. We are in any event entirely opposed to this being included as a reserved department of the Government of India.
I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman realises how very important a proposition is involved in the Amendment. He said that there were two people who were drawing pensions, two bishops. That is true. But let the Committee listen to these facts. In this country at this moment there are drawing annual pensions from Indian revenues, eight chaplains receiving from £240 to £300 a year, 44 chaplains receiving from £300 to £400 a year, 103 chaplains receiving from £400 to £480 a year, and two receiving from £800 a year. Those two probably are the bishops. Let the Committee understand that we take no objection to the provision of religious ministration and comfort for our troops in India so long as they are there. That is an agreed proposition on all sides. But we do think that it is an impossible proposition to defend, that the Indian people who do not entertain our religious
philosophy at all, whose religious concepts are entirely opposed to ours, should be asked to bear this burden. I think it is a monstrous proposition, and in saying that I am probably understating the feelings that are entertained on the matter.
By all means send as many chaplains to India as you want, but why should Indians who entertain the Hindu faith or the Moslem faith and who are perhaps hopelessly hostile to the whole concept of the Christian religion—why should they have to pay for it? Is there any principle that any one can summon to his assistance in this matter other than this—that Army administration, the cost of the Army service has fallen upon Indians, that this is associated with Army service and that therefore its cost should fall on India too? Really we ought to be able to arrive at some sort of decision agreeable to both sides in this matter. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State thinks that this arrangement is agreeable, but I very much doubt it. I know that he will probably be able to say to me, and I do not controvert him, that I cannot quote any Hindu opinion or Moslem opinion that has been recorded against the provision of this spiritual comfort for our troops and the placing of the financial burden on the backs of the Indian people. That is probably true. [Laughter] What is there to laugh at? Where is the joke?

Viscount WOLMER: I apologise. I was referring to another matter altogether

Mr. JONES: Then I also apologise to the Noble Lord, and honour is served on both sides. After all, it may be that a sense of delicacy prevents the Indian people from calling attention to this subject They do riot like pointedly to call attention to this burden that is imposed upon them on account of religious considerations. They may feel some hesitation about it lest they may be presumed to urge that the soldiers in India should not have access to that spiritual comfort to which they are entitled. Therefore, I can quite understand their having a sense of delicacy in raising the matter at all. But we here ought to entertain no such qualms at all, and I suggest that it would be a gracious act for us to say, "Well, there are some considerations that de-
limit this from the general question of defence, and whatever our subsequent decision may be concerning the appropriateness of imposing the burden of defence on the Indian people, let us at least say that this particular burden should be our own burden."
I want to ask another question. The Secretary of State said that we had regarded this as our duty from the days of the old East India Company. On page 290 of the Bill, in the Federal list, there is a reference to "Ecclesiastical affairs, including European cemeteries." I wonder whether that indicates that ecclesiastical affairs are confined simply to the provision of spiritual comfort for the British troops? Is there some sort of collateral provision for the Hindu section or the Moslem section of the Indian Army? If there is no such provision clearly my case is all the stronger, because surely it cannot be right that we should land upon India the burden in respect of teaching the Christian faith to our troops and not provide a similar service for those indigenous members of the Army who want to enjoy a similar privilege. I ask the Secretary of State to believe that we do feel very strongly about this matter and attach great importance to it. We do not want to be fobbed off with an inadequate reply. The matter goes down to the very roots of the faith which some of us entertain ourselves, and we are not going to have it treated lightly, though I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman believes that we are very serious in our intentions in raising this matter.

7.43 p.m.

Mr. G. NICHOLSON: The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. M. Jones) seems to be under many misapprehensions. I think I am right in saying that the Indian army is afforded every facility for getting that species of worship which the individual members desire. I think I am right in saying that at the Military Academy at Debra Dun the Indian Government pays the Hindu priests and the Moslem mufti. The situation is very different for the Indian troops who are in their own country. They can, so to speak, go to the parish church and find their particular religious refreshment in the locality. If you once admit that British troops are necessary in India, surely spiritual consolation and nourish-
ment are as necessary for them as European food and medical attendance. There are other arguments on which I do not lay much stress, such as that the Christian community in India provides a very large proportion of the Indian revenue, a proportion quite inconsistent with its numerical strength, and if the hon. Member takes the trouble to inquire he will find that the Indian Government make certain that Indian troops have the spiritual ministrations of which they are in need and in many cases the Government pays the priests of the various religions.

7.45 p.m.

Lord APSLEY: I am rather surprised at the somewhat narrow and parochial outlook of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones). If he were to take that point of view when speaking to his constituents in their chapel on Sunday afternoon, where I understand they believe in the universal brotherhood of man, they would be somewhat surprised. Has he forgotten when the Indian troops were fighting for us in France and Palestine, when they were in the charge of the British taxpayer and every facility was afforded them to conduct their religious devotions at considerable expense and at very great difficulty? In different regiments squadrons of Mohammedan and Hindus had to be fed in different ways.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Who paid?

Lord APSLEY: The British taxpayer, and we were glad to pay, because the Indian troops were helping us to fight a common foe. The British troops are in India to protect that country. The Indians would be the first to agree that, if the British troops were withdrawn, the Indian Army would disintegrate rapidly, the Pathans would come in from the North backed by the Afghans and other nomadic tribes following them, and in a short time the whole of the North West would succumb to the foreign invader. It is the presence of British troops that gives them the security under which they Can develop their own individuality. The Indians themselves would be amazed at the suggestion, particularly from a Member who represents the nation who have done perhaps more than any other race in spreading good fellowship and Christian knowledge throughout the world.

7.48 p.m.

Captain FULLER: I very much regret that the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) has raised the question of religion in India. Various communities in Indian regiments are provided with religious teachers, and they usually combine spiritual ministrations with education. If it be wrong to ask the people of India to subscribe to the religious administration of British troops, it must be equally wrong to ask the Moslems to subscribe to the Hindu pundits. I should be sorry if the hon. Gentleman pressed the Amendment to a division.

7.49 p.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I do not think the two hon. Members who have spoken last appreciate the problem. It is a question of sending a large sum of money out of India every year in order to pay pensioned officers of these services. It is quite a different proposition from keeping money in India for paying the teachers. The sum that goes out of India is somewhere about £250,000 a year for the pensions of these ecclesiastical officers. To ask the Indian people to send that sum annually out of the country for the purpose of pensioning people here seems to us to be asking too much altogether.
There is another question I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman. I am informed that there is no definition in the Bill of "ecclesiastical affairs"; there is no limitation of it to matters that concern the Army at all. Prima facie, if that is so, this reserved power would cover all matters arising out of any Church. I presume that is the basis of the word "ecclesiastical." If that be so, I should like to know how far this reserved power is to extend. We have heard, for instance, that there are two bishops on the retired list who are pensioned. I am not taking any objection to that—they have probably done excellent work—but I am not clear whether they were connected, as it were, with the troops in India or whether they had functions which extended beyond the troops. How far, in other words, did these ecclesiastical affairs extend to the affairs of the Church of India?

Wing-Commander JAMES: I believe it also covers Roman Catholics and Nonconformists?

Sir S. CRIPPS: We have also heard that it covers Hindus and Moslems. If "ecclesiastical affairs" covers the whole range of religion, does it mean that the supervision of the whole range of religion is to be a reserved subject for the Governor-General? The Church of India, of course, deals with other souls besides the souls of the soldier, the airman and the sailor. Does the province of the Governor-General extend to the cure of souls beyond the Army in the Church of India, and, if so, does it also extend to the cure of souls beyond the Army in these various other religious denominations?

7.53 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: I am not surprised that there should be a little misunderstanding on this question. A general election was fought on it in Burma in which one of the parties declared that the object of the reservation of the department of ecclesiastical affairs was to impose Christianity upon the Buddhists. That shows that a question of this kind needs a little explanation. The reservation does not have anything like the extension suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman. It does not cover Moslem and Hindu spiritual ministrations. They are provided directly out of Army funds. Nor again does it cover the whole range of the Church of India. It covers a clearly defined province—I am not using "province" in the ecclesiastical sense—and a number of very specific appointments almost all of them being chaplaincies either for the Army or for the services. There is a small and diminishing overlap which will come to an end in the comparatively near future. Speaking generally, it is certain definite appointments for the Army and for the Services, carrying with it incidental ex-

penses. Lastly, I suggest that we should not make too much of this. I think it is very significant that no Indian ever criticised it. Even admitting the observations made by the hon. Member for Caerphilly, they all take it for granted that the provision of these funds is an essential part of the provision for the Army and for the Services. There is no question of extending the scope of the Department beyond what I have just described, in actual practice the expenditure is likely to diminish, and certainly in no case can it go beyond the figure in the Clause to which I have drawn attention.

7.59 p.m.

Earl WINTERTON: As I was responsible for getting the Indian Church Bill through the House, I should like to say a word in justice to the Church to supplement what my right hon. Friend has said. Take the Church of England, now known as the Indian Church. The greater part of its ministrations, which are carried out not merely for the benefit of soldiers and officers but for Indian Christian members of the Church of England, are carried out under its own constitution under the Act of Parliament which I was responsible for getting through the House and do not cost the taxpayer in India one penny. The same applies to the Roman Catholic community and to the Nonconformist Churches. I think it is desirable to make that clear, because the impression might be created that in some way this proposal was going to place an obligation upon Indian taxpayers in respect of Christian ministrations.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 204 Noes, 37.

Division No. 68.]
AYES.
[8.0 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Belt. Sir Alfred L.
Cadogan, Hon. Edward


Albery, Irving James
Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm


Alexander, Sir William
Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Caporn, Arthur Cecil


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Blindell, James
Cassels, James Dale


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Boulton, W. W.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Bower, Commander Robert Tatton
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J.A. (Birm. W.)


Apsley, Lord
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Brass, Captain Sir William
Clarry, Reginald George


Atholl, Duchess of
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.


Balley, Eric Alfred George
Broadbent, Colonel John
Colfox, Major William Philip


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Cook, Thomas A.


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Cooke, Douglas


Balniel, Lord
Burnett, John George
Courtauld, Major John Sewell


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Butler, Richard Austen
Cradoock, Sir Reginald Henry


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Butt, Sir Alfred
Cranborne, Viscount


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Lewis, Oswald
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Crooke, J. Smedley
Liddall, Walter S.
Ress Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Crossley, A. C.
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Curry, A. C.
McKie, John Hamilton
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Davidson. Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney).


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Savery, Samuel Servington


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Magnay, Thomas
Scone, Lord


Dickie, John P.
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Donner, P. W.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R
Shaw, Captain William T. (Fortar)


Duckworth, George A. V.
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Dunglass, Lord
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Smithers, Sir Waldron


Eales, John Frederick
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Somervell, Sir Donald


Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Mitcheson, G. G.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Stones, James


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Strauss, Edward A.


Fraser, Captain Sir Ian
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Moss, Captain H. J.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Munro, Patrick
Summersby, Charles H.


Ganzonl, Sir John
Nation, Brigadier-General J, J. H.
Tate, Mavis Constance


Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A.(P'dd'gt'n, S.)


Gower, Sir Robert
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid
Templeton, William P.


Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Nunn, William
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Ormiston, Thomas
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Patrick, Colin M.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Pearson, William G.
Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Petherick, M.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Potter, John
Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)


Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Pybus, Sir John
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Hornby, Frank
Radford, E. A.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Horobin, Ian M.
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Watt, Major George Steven H.


Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Wells, Sidney Richard


Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
White, Henry Graham


James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Ramsbotham, Herwald
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Ratcliffe, Arthur
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Rea, Walter Russell
Williams. Herbert G. (Croydon. S.)


Ker, J. Campbell
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Kerr, Hamilton W.
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Kirkpatrick, William M.
Remer, John R.



Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Rickards, George William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Leech, Dr. J. W.
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Sir George Penny and Sir Walter




Womersley.


NOES.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Edwards, Charles
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)


Ranfield, John William
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Mainwaring, William Henry


Batey, Joseph
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Milner, Major James


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Nathan, Major H. L.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Parkinson, John Allen


Buchanan, George
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypooll
Rathbone, Eleanor


Cape, Thomas
Grundy, Thomas W.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cleary, J. J.
Hail, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Thorne, William James


Cove, William G.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Tinker, John Joseph


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lawson, John James
Wilmot, John


Daggar, George
Logan, David Gilbert



Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Lunn, William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. John and Mr. Paling.

The CHAIRMAN: I propose to call the next Amendment on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member for the English Universities (Sir R. Craddock), but I must warn the Committee that this is a very narrow point indeed and that we cannot on this Amendment discuss the question of the control of the police in the Provinces. If the hon. Member wishes to move the Amendment in this form to deal with control of the
police of the Federal Government, that will be in order.

8.7 p.m.

Sir R. CRADDOCK: I beg to move, in page 7, line 36, after "affairs," to insert:
and the control and superintendence of the intelligence department of the police, dealing with revolutionary and anarchist movements.
The Amendment deals with what may be called the civil side of the defence of India and does not affect the question of whether law and order in the Provinces is in the hands of a minister or not, but it does affect the control of the Governor-General over the intelligence department, upon which he depends in order to decide whether he is to take action under his special responsibilities or at his discretion. It is obvious that the Governor-General can only fulfil his functions if he has full information from the whole of India which is under his charge and in respect of which his responsibilities extend. Consequently, he must be able to control, collect, and utilise information, and, if necessary, superintend the Governors in matters arising from dangerous, subversive, or revolutionary conspiracies, which are scattered about, not only in the Governors' Provinces, but may have their branches and their effects in the Chief Commissioners' Provinces, in an excluded area, in a federated State, or in a non-federated State. Those activities of the Governor-General for the defence of India must have some organisation at headquarters which shall be under his discretion, in order that he may be cognisant of what is going on and may be able to give, in discharge of that responsibility, special instructions from time to time to the Governors under him and to all other authorities, civil and military, under him.
I hope to secure that by the Amendment without trespassing at all on the question of law and order in the Provinces. Whatever may be the system there, it is certain that all these questions of revolutionary and subversive movements must be under one control eventually in order to secure that co-ordination and co-operation upon which successful operations to defeat such conspiracies must depend. I want to emphasise very strongly what will take place under this new Constitution in respect of that part of the work of the Government of India which is at present performed by the central criminal investigation department and, over it, by the home department. I shall not put forth a lot of imaginary dangers that might arise or difficulties that might be felt, but I will give my own experience of the dangers that arise in an appointment which I held for five and
a-quarter years, including over two and a-half years of the War.
We had conspiracies emanating, not all in India itself, but having effects in parts of India—conspiracies organised from outside which began to take effective forms within the country. We had to have information from Vancouver, Hong Kong, Siam and Japan itself, and all this kind of information related to organisations which were not confined to one Province. They may have appeared first in one Province, say Bengal, but they had their manifestations through branches, and even through outbreaks, it might be in the Punjab, at Lahore, or it might be at Delhi, or in the United Provinces, or Bombay, or Madras. We had conspirators who entered right away via Ceylon and so forth, and I can tell the Committee that the work of the home department in that one branch and in that respect was such as to occupy a great deal of time and thought and co-ordinated action, not only between the police who were charged with dealing with anarchy and crimes of that kind, but between the officers in charge of law and order all over India who might have to deal with attempts to seduce the troops from their allegiance, which, I take it, would be covered by the words "conspiracy having a revolutionary tendency."
I will give an illustration of the cooperation which the army requires from the civil side and from officers, whether police, or executive officers, or magistrates, as the case may be. I was visiting Simla in 1907. That was the year which happened to be 50 years from the Mutiny and was, therefore, selected for movements of a seditious and subversive character. These were going on at the time of my visit to Simla, where I went to see Lord Kitchener upon the question of the location of the garrison, but in the course of that somewhat long conversation Lord Kitchener impressed on me the supreme importance of the civil authorities throughout India, wherever they might be, keeping level, and acquainted, with what was going on in matters affecting the army and the allegiance of the troops in the cantonments, infantry and cavalry lines, and so on. He said to me—and I shall never forget it—" I get my information from various sources, from the staff or regimental officers or others who find
information of this kind, and I hear of attempts made on the loyalty of troops. I get that information, but that is not enough." He said—and I am sure everyone in the Committee will agree—that it is very desirable that officers of the Indian Army should not act in any way to make the troops under them begin to feel that they are suspected. It was so in the Mutiny of course. There were officers who stood by their men and swore that their men, at all events, were absolutely trustworthy, and who were afterwards surprised by an èmeute among their particular troops.
We have to guard against that. If the officers were always suspecting their men it would destroy the complete harmony and the pleasant relations that always exist between British officers and the sepoys in the Indian Army. It is, therefore, all the more incumbent on the civil authorities to help us with every information that they can discover which we cannot find for ourselves. The opportunities to do that are many. The troops do not only get leave in bazaars, but they travel by train back to their homes on furlough, and these are the opportunities for the insidious and malignant men who pour poison into the ears of the troops in order to induce them to depart from their allegiance. They are occasions when their officers would hear nothing about it and are thus very dangerous. Similarly one of the ways in which troops are influenced in India is by agitators and others who persecute their families while the sepoys themselves are on service. It must be remembered, also, that there are all kinds of acts of murder or sabotage on railways, dacoities and so forth which, although they may seem to be ordinary crimes with the ordinary motives for such crimes, are proved to be part of political conspiracies and are intended to serve political ends.
It is essential that the Governor-General at the top should be acquainted with these crimes as they occur from time to time. If a magistrate or a police officer gets news of attempts at sedition or attempts at tampering with troops, it is his duty to communicate it to the local military officer, namely, the officer commanding the station or a brigade or a division as the case may be. It is all a question of civil help to the defence of India and of protecting the army from insidious
attempts to weaken its allegiance and thereby to bring about the fall of the raj. These objectives are not stated in any way in the Bill, and it seems to me much better to put into the Clause the words of the Amendment rather than to leave only some vague reference to defence without any reference to the particular duties which will fall on the Governor-General. It must be remembered that under the new Federal Constitution it is a source of anxiety as to what happens to the Home Department. It now keeps a general superintendence over the whole of the police and gaols in the Provinces, but all that part of its duty will go with provincial autonomy and with law and order transferred to Ministers. There are other duties in connection with the Home Department which will likewise go, and the Department as such will have very little left. It has many special duties, but those connected most prominently with the Home Department, including, besides crime, the Press, the security services, and the Indian Medical service, rest not with the federal ministers but with the Governor-General.
My successor in office who was enamoured of a new constitution such as the one proposed in the Bill, told me he was very anxious about how the Government of India, and especially the Governor-General, would get on without this great Home Department upon which every Governor-General in the past had depended to acquaint him thoroughly with what goes on in every part of India in regard to conspiracies, subversive political moves and all sorts of events which have a grave significance. They must be ascertained and made known; otherwise, the Governor - General, especially now that he is left with only a private secretariat, will be unable to obtain information and take action in respect of these matters because of the vast burdens put upon him of other responsibilities and other branches of administration upon which his sanction or his discretion or his individual judgment will have to be exercised. This Amendment cannot be objectionable under the system which the Government are themselves setting up, and I hope that, as the right hon. Gentleman has accepted two of my Amendments, he will keep up the record and accept this one.

8.25 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I rise to support this Amendment, which to us is one of great importance, though it is not what we most wish in regard to the question of the police. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend will tell us that this department is to be reserved under the Defence Department, or any other reserved departments of the Governor-General, but as the work of the central intelligence bureau appears in paragraph (1) of the list of federal subjects on which the Federal Legislature can legislate, it does not seem clear that it is reserved to the control of the Governor-General, and if it is not reserved for him he must act on the advice of a minister. It would be in control of a minister, who would have all power and initiative in the matter, unless, of course, the Governor-General becomes aware of a grave menace to the peace and tranquillity of India. If this department is under an Indian federal minister then the value of Clause 58, which requires secrecy in regard to terrorist intelligence, so that no information in regard to terrorist crime is to be revealed to anyone except with the consent of the Governor-General in regard to persons outside the police force, and the inspector-general of police in regard to members of the force, will largely have gone, because we can find nothing in the Bill requiring similar secrecy at the centre. I think that the Joint Select Committee wish the central intelligence bureau reserved, and the European Association were also strongly of the opinion that the whole intelligence branch of the police should be under the control of the Governor-General. They were prepared to hand over the rest of the police force, but not the intelligence branch of the criminal investigation department.
As I have indicated we would prefer to see the whole of the police force reserved in the various Provinces, as well as the central intelligence bureau, because we do not see how an Indian minister of police can really defend the action of the police, acting on intelligence they receive from the Intelligence Department, unless all are together. If we could be assured that the central intelligence bureau was reserved to the Governor-General there would be some hope of securing secrecy, which is so essential.
So many witnesses assured the Governor-General that unless secrecy could be assured information in regard to terrorism would dry up, because such information can only come from inside the revolutionary ranks, and no one would be ready to give any more information if he thought that his identity might be disclosed. I do not feel that Clause 58 is going to secure that secrecy, though I cannot enter into that question now; but, as regards the directing head, we do wish to see it placed beyond doubt that that office is in thoroughly trustworthy hands.
I think this is all the more important since we have been able to realise, as the result of the publication of the report of the Joint Select Committee, how much more widely prevalent terrorism is in India than we had believed. When the Secretary of State last spoke in this House of terrorism, about 18 months ago, be spoke of it only in Bengal, but in a very informative Memorandum which he presented to the Joint Select Committee he showed that since 1930 terrorist crime has been taking place in, I think, every other Province in India. He gave a list of all the terrorists outrages. The Joint Select Committee were ready for everything to be reserved in Bengal in the event of terrorism still being bad in that Province when Provincial Autonomy was set up, but we do not feel that is sufficient, because of the serious evidence of its existence in other parts. The Secretary of State, in that same Memorandum, also spoke of the great growth of communism in India, with propaganda by men trained in Soviet institutions and financed, no doubt, by Soviet money. The Memorandum also spoke of efforts being made to combine communism and terrorism with the movement which exists to create mutiny in Sikh regiments. Therefore, the situation in India is a very serious one. Any information in regard to these very dangerous movements must be of a highly confidential kind, and secrecy will be absolutely essential if any further information is to be procured. For that reason we think it is important that the central intelligence branch should be reserved to the Governor-General, and we should like it to control the intelligence branches of the police in the various Provinces.

The CHAIRMAN: I warned the Committee when we started that we could
not consider this question as it affected the Provinces.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I am very sorry that I was not in the Committee at the time, but the Provinces are in the words of the Amendment.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not wish the Noble Lady to misunderstand me. The Provinces are not mentioned in the Amendment.

Duchess of ATHOLL: No, Sir, but control of the police is. I quite recognise that the Provinces are not mentioned, but as the police are a provincial subject if the intelligence branch is going to control the police it naturally does cover the police in the Provinces—or so I understand the Amendment.

The CHAIRMAN: I warned the Committee when I called the Amendment that it dealt with only a very narrow point—control by the Federal Government, and not control in the Provinces. That I rule quite definitely.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I am afraid the claims of hunger prevented me from hearing your Ruling, or I should not have trespassed. Even though the Amendment is within narrow limits, we attach importance to it, and therefore I support it.

8.33 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: I am sure we were all glad to listen to the hon. Member for the English Universities (Sir H. Craddock). He and I served for a long time on the joint Select Committee, and, although I am afraid we did not always agree, I have always listened with the greatest interest, and I am sure with a good deal of profit, to the observations of one who speaks with many years of most distinguished experience behind him. He almost trespassed on my goodness. He said that having accepted two of his Amendments I ought to accept the third. I hope I shall be able to show that it really would not be possible to accept this Amendment. The Amendment would reserve at the centre the control and superintendence of the intelligence department of police dealing with revolutionary and anarchist movements, that is to say, that wide field of activity would be directly under the Governor-General and would be removed from the Provinces. One of the bases of our scheme is provincial autonomy, and, if
there is to be provincial autonomy, it is quite essential that law and order should be a provincial subject. I am not now arguing the question whether law and order should be transferred. It seems quite definite that law and order is bound to be a provincial subject, that is to say, the police will remain as they are now, a provincial service; that is to say also that the officials mostly connected with the discovery and the punishment of crime of the character set out in the Amendment will be provincial officials. That being so, I suggest to the Committee that it would be impossible to divorce the provincial administration from an essential branch of the work with which that administration will deal, and that it would be impossible to keep in the hands of the Governor-General at the centre all the intelligence of the police when the executive action connected with the police remained under provincial control.

Sir R. CRADDOCK: I did not mean that the Governor-General should interfere with the police who are working under the governors. Certain reports which go up to the governors are then conveyed by the criminal investigation department to the central bureau of that department, and that is to go on irrespective of what the ordinary police may be doing. I did not wish to interfere with the complete transfer of law and order in the Provinces.

Sir S. HOARE: I am greatly relieved to hear my hon. Friend's comment on his Amendment. It removes the need for me to develop further the argument upon which I was engaged. I think he will see—I do not want to split hairs about it—that the wording of his Amendment appears to go a good deal further. Let me take his Amendment as he has just described it, namely, that it is to do nothing more than keep under the Governor-General at the centre a bureau to which reports of this kind will come; a bureau by means of which the Governor-General will be kept informed as to subversive movements of this kind in the Provinces; a bureau that will enable him to give such directions to the governors in the Provinces as would prevent a grave menace to the peace and stability of India. If that be the meaning fo his Amendment, and I am very glad to hear that it is, there is no reason for any
further addition to the Bill in this connection. Under the provisions of the Bill the central intelligence bureau remains as a reserved section of the Department of Defence. That is the answer to my Noble Friend the Member for Kinross and Western (Duchess of Atholl). It will remain a reserved department directly under the Governor-General and it will perform just the kind of function that my hon. Friend has described, in the intervention which he has just made when I seemed to be going beyond what he intended by his Amendment.

Duchess of ATHOLL: May I ask if my right hon. Friend will remember that in paragraph 97 of the Joint Committee's Report it was recommended that the central intelligence bureau should remain a reserved department as he has just described it. The paragraph goes on to say that it
should not involve any change in the relationship which at present exists between the central bureau and the provincial intelligence departments. Should the Governor-General find that the information at his disposal, whether received through the channel of the Governors or from the provincial intelligence departments through the central intelligence bureau, is inadequate, he will, in virtue of recommendations which we make later possess complete authority to secure through the Governor the correction of any deficiencies, and indeed to point out to the Governor, and require him to set right, any shortcomings which he may have noticed in the organisation or activities of the provincial intelligence branch.
May I ask my right hon. Friend, will the central intelligence bureau, or the Governor-General, acting through the bureau, be in a position to require those improvements in the provincial intelligence departments?

Sir S. HOARE: Yes, Sir, certainly. It is clear that that is so under other provisions of the Bill. Under Clause 125 (4):
Without prejudice to his powers under the last preceding Sub-section, the Governor-General, acting in his discretion, may at any time issue orders to the Governor of a Province as to the manner in which the executive authority thereof is to be exercised for the purpose of preventing any grave menace to the peace or tranquillity of India or of any part thereof.
That Clause directly meets the point of my Noble Friend. After the interpretation he put upon his Amendment,
my hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities will probably see that there is no need for the Amendment, because his point is already covered.

Sir R. CRADDOCK: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.42 p.m.

Mr. COCKS: I beg to move, in page 7, line 36, to leave out from "affairs," to "shall," in line 39.
The object of the Amendment is to give to Indian Ministers and people some control over their own foreign relationships and a part in foreign affairs. In some respects India has already reached Dominion status, because she is represented at the League of Nations as other Dominions are. As it is the declared object of the Government to foster in India 'a spirit of nationhood, it is very important that that spirit should be fostered and strengthened and that this particular important function of nationhood, and its relations with other units and other nations, should not be taken away or reserved to the Governor-General. Just as human beings only realise themselves by their contact with other entities, just as, I imagine, the Secretary of State for India has never realised his power before, as a result of his contact with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), India can only realise her nationhood by knowledge of the issues which arise between India and other countries.
That is so, especially in view of the great events—perhaps grave events—which are shaping themselves in Asia, and in regard to which a grave warning has been issued by General Smuts and others. It is very important that the Indian people should realise their nationhood, and should realise by the actual management of their own foreign affairs what relationships should exist between India and other nations in Asia. If India does, as I hope and trust, realise her nationhood in that way, and understand the forces that are moulding the world, she will become proud of her membership of the British commonwealth of self-governing nations and will refuse to become either the pawn or the prey of some other Oriental imperialism. If our Western skies darken because of events in Europe, it will be a great consolation
to us to know that the peoples of India are holding the Eastern wall. If this is to happen, the Department of Foreign Affairs should not be withdrawn from the Ministers and representatives of India. They should not only be able to control that Department, but should be able, in the Assembly and the Council of State, to discuss foreign affairs and ask questions of their Foreign Minister—questions relating to Japan, questions relating to Moslem countries, and various matters of that sort; and thus the pressure of education would go right through Rom Parliament to the politically conscious classes as to what the position of the world is. It may be said that, if India is given control of foreign affairs in that way, she might enter into some treaty with a Foreign Power which would be adverse to British interests. But there are always safeguards against that; there is always a tremendous number of influences bearing on the Government of India; and in the last resort there is the veto of the Governor-General.
I consider that the reasons I have given are very important reasons why India should be given control over the sphere of foreign policy; but there is another sphere of foreign policy, apart from that which deals with the massing and alignment of nations in the political or military sense. It is not so dramatic, but is equally important. I refer to the conclusion of commercial agreements of various kinds. In this country, for example—in fact, the report of the Joint Select Committee alludes to it—commercial agreements are concluded by the Foreign Minister. Of course he takes into consultation, and is helped by, the officials of the Board of Trade, but the actual conclusion of these agreements is done by the Foreign Office, and, as the Joint Select Committee's Report says, that will be the procedure also in India.
Consider this position. You have an Indian Government, with its own fiscal policy and its own ideas of how the trade of India should be directed in the future. If you have a Ministry of that sort, and if you are going to take away from that Ministry the power of concluding commercial treaties and make it one of the reserved subjects, it might happen under this system, at any rate theoretically, although perhaps one could not conceive of its happening in practice, that the
Governor-General would be able to conclude a commercial treaty with some other country which would be quite contrary to the policy pursued in other directions by the Ministry.
The only objection, as far as I know, that has ever been put forward to foreign affairs not being a reserved subject, is that the sphere of defence is reserved, and that it is so intimately connected with the sphere of external affairs that, if the one is reserved, the other must be reserved also. I do not, however, see that that follows. It is true that the spheres of defence and external affairs are intimately connected, but so are other departments intimately connected with the sphere of defence—that of finance for example; and, although the sphere of defence is a reserved department, it is not a secret department. The facts are known. The size and numbers of the Army, the striking power of the military forces, are well known to Ministers, and the Minister in charge of foreign affairs would know exactly and precisely how far he can go, and in what direction he must not go. He would know exactly the relations between the defence of India and his own sphere. Moreover, the Commissioner in charge of the reserved department of defence would be closely associated and in touch with the Foreign Minister, as the report says he should be. Although he may not be a member of the Cabinet, he would be in almost day-to-day touch with him. There is no reason, therefore, why foreign affairs should not be controlled by the Assembly and the Council of State, even though the department of defence is reserved.
It is true that the department of foreign affairs would be limited by the facts of the case, as it is in this country. If in this country defence were entirely reserved to the Crown, and taken out of the control of Parliament, there would be no reason why we should not have our beloved Foreign Minister here and be able to ask him questions and control the foreign policy of this country, even if the state of the Army and Navy were not a matter for our concern. Therefore, I do not consider that this is a real objection at all. It is the same kind of objection as I mentioned before on the question of Dominion status; it is simply a point of pedagogic pedantry. In any case, the reasons I have given for proposing that the department of foreign
affairs or external relations should be in the hands of Indian Ministers far outweigh an objection of that kind.

8.52 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER: I think the Committee will realise the object of the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks) in submitting his Amendment. I regret to say that this is one of the subjects which the Government regard as fundamental to the whole scheme of the Bill. If the words which the hon. Member proposes should be left out were left out of the Bill, it would mean that the subject of foreign affairs would be excluded from the direct control of the Governor-General, and excluded from being a reserved subject. I had the privilege of being associated with the hon. Member for some considerable period on the Joint Select Committee, and he will recollect that, in paragraph 184 of their report, they draw attention to this problem of external affairs, and to the relationship of external affairs to the question of defence. These subjects are intimately bound up together. For reasons with which I do not think I need trouble the Committee, we have found it imperative to reserve to the Governor-General the portfolio of defence, and for similar reasons, involving great Imperial considerations, we have found it imperative to reserve to the Governor-General the portfolio of external affairs.
Perhaps one of the most important points in the hon. Member's remarks was his reference to commercial treaties, and, in any observations that I make on this point, I propose to assist the Committee, if I may say so, by using the language of the amateur and not that of a legal expert on this particular subject. I would like to assure the Committee that there is no intention of taking out of the realm of those affairs which are controlled by Ministers, and not by counsellors, the negotiation of commercial agreements. I think the matter was put most clearly in the Report of the Joint Select Committee, in the paragraph to which I have previously referred. There they say:
In the United Kingdom, however, all agreements with foreign countries are made through the Foreign Office. Any other arrangement would lead to grave inconvenience; but when a trade or commercial agreement is negotiated, the Foreign Office consult and co-operate with the Board of Trade, whose officials necessarily take part in any discussions which precede the agree
ment. We assume that similar arrangements will be adopted in India, and that the Department of External Affairs will maintain a close contact with the Department of Trade or Commerce; but we are clear that agreements of any kind with a foreign country must be made by the Governor-General, even if on the merits of a trade or commercial issue he is guided by the advice of the appropriate Minister.
I do not think that any words of mine could improve or clarify that statement as to the future without attempting, what I believe no constitutional lawyer would attempt, to define it any more clearly. I would remind the Committee that there is no intention of reserving to the Governor-General the negotiation of commercial agreements. The intention is rather that the sort of arrangement which I have just described in the words of the Joint Select Committee, should prevail in that department. Similar considerations apply to the position of India in certain respects in relation to the League of Nations, a point which was not mentioned by the hon. Member for Broxtowe but one in which I am sure he is interested.
The hon. Member must not think, and I would not like the Committee to think, that in negotiating certain international Conventions, it is our intention to take this question quite away from the Indian Ministers in the Central Government who may be interested in any subject but the general consideration about the procedure going through the Foreign Office and, in this case, through the Governor-General must prevail even though, as the Joint Select Committee says, the Governor-General is guided by the advice of a particular Minister on a particular subject of this sort. For these reasons the Government find it impassible to accept an Amendment which excludes so vitally important a department as that of external affairs. At the same time while giving the Committee this decision, I do not wish them to think that we shall deprive Indian Ministers of privileges which they have had hitherto and privileges which I hope they may enjoy in the future.

8.58 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I gather that in future India's actions at the League of Nations will be determined by the Governor-General, that is to say the policy will be determined by the
Governor-General which in effect means the British Government. I shall be glad to be corrected if I am wrong.

Mr. BUTLER: I have attempted to outline a certain category of points in which the Governor-General would acoept the advice, in the constitutional sense, of the Minister of the Department concerned.

Mr. JONES: I do not think that meets my point because there is a great range of subjects which could be brought before the League of Nations, and I take it that if an Indian delegate goes to the League to participate in its discussions, he will not be entitled to speak except in so far as he becomes the mouthpiece of the Governor-General and the Governor-General will determine the external policy of India. I wonder what will be the effect of such an arrangement upon the future position of delegations from the British Empire at the League of Nations. When we discuss this matter we naturally associate in our minds the idea of defence with the subject of external policy. To hon. Members on these benches it seems that the measure of your armaments must depend largely upon the nature of your policy. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman opposite would put it in the contrary way—that the measure of your armaments must determine your policy, and of course there is a wide range of possible arguments between those two points of view.
We have been told that the Government accept the idea of 'Dominion status as the ultimate aim in India. In that case is there not strong reason for familiarising the people of India with the control of foreign affairs in preparation for the time when Dominion status will become a reality? Those who were at the Joint Select Committee will remember that one of the most powerful arguments addressed to that Committee during its sittings was that addressed to it by my hon. Friend the Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee). He urged that in the new Central Assembly a large number of people representative of all parts of India would be brought together for a certain period every year and that advantage should be taken of that opportunity. As we now see it, this instrument of government will give them a very limited amount of work to do, and my hon. Friend pleaded with the Joint Select
Committee—and we embodied this point in our report—that the Centre should not be fashioned too closely upon what was called the Westminster model but that the Central Assembly should be enabled to set up a series of standing committees for the discussion of problems relating to the well-being of India as a whole.
Among those committees we particularly wanted to see one established to deal with external affairs so that the Indian representatives, even though their authority, for the moment, might be carefully circumscribed should be familiarised with the intricacies of foreign policy. If they are to have Dominion status at some future date not yet specified, it is not right or proper that they should be plunged into the difficult and perplexing task of dealing with external policy without some preliminary experience. I think it is desirable in the interests of the future success of Indian self-government, either as it is visualised in this Bill or as the idea may be amplified later, that this extra authority should be handed over to the Indian people. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has not been able to give us a more satisfying reply, and I am afraid that we must register our discontent with his reply by going into the Division Lobby.

9.4 p.m.

Mr. BAILEY: I wish to congratulate the Minister upon having at least stood firm against this Amendment. It is unusual in these days to be able to congratulate the Government even upon, such a small matter and I do so on this occasion with the greatest pleasure. But there was one statement in the Minister's reply which filled some of us with considerable misgiving. I understood him to say that trade agreements are not to be reserved and will only formally go through the Governor-General. I do not want to trespass outside the obvious intention of the Amendment, but one cannot allow a statement like that, which must strike dismay into the hearts of Lancashire people, to go through without some protest. I urge the Minister strongly, but in the most friendly spirit, to consider whether the attitude indicated by him on this matter cannot be revised between now and the time when this Bill is to become law.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 179; Noes, 36.

Division No. 69.]
AYES.
[9.7 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Hamilton, Sir R.W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Albery, Irving James
Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)
Rankin, Robert


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Ratcliffe, Arthur


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Rea, Walter Russell


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Apsley, Lord
Hornby, Frank
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Atholl, Duchess of
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Remer, John R.


Barclay Harvey, C. M.
Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe)
Rickards, George William


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Blindell, James
Ker, J. Campbell
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)


Boulton, W. W.
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Bower, Commander Robert Tatton
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Boyce, H. Leslie
Knox, Sir Alfred
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Brass, Captain Sir William
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney).


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Leckie, J. A.
Savery, Samuel Servington


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Burnett, John George
Levy, Thomas
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Butler, Richard Austen
Lewis, Oswald
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Butt, Sir Alfred
Liddall, Walter S.
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Smithers, Sir Waldron


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)
Somervell, Sir Donald


Cassels, James Dale
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
McCorquodale, M. S.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Strauss, Edward A.


Collox, Major William Philip
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Cook, Thomas A.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Crooke, J. Smedley
Magnay, Thomas
Tate, Mavis Constance


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Templeton, William P.


Crossley, A. C.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Cruddas, Lieut-Colonel Bernard
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Curry, A. C.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Davies, Maj.Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Mitcheson, G. G.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Dickie, John p.
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Elmley, Viscount
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)


Essenhigh. Reginald Clare
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Munro, Patrick
Warrender, Sir, Victor A. G.


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Watt, Major George Steven H.


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid
Wells, Sidney Richard


Ganzonl, Sir John
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
White, Henry Graham


Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Palmer, Francis Noel
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Patrick, Colin M.
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Gower, Sir Robert
Pearson, William G.
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Penny, Sir George
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Greene, William P. C.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Grimston, R. V.
Radford, E. A.



Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M (Midlothian)
Sir Walter Womersley and Lieut.-


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Islet)
Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.




NOES.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Edwards, Charles
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)


Banfield, John William
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Mainwaring, William Henry


Batey, Joseph
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Milner, Major James


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks.W.Riding)
Parkinson, John Allen


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Groves, Thomas E.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Buchanan, George
Grundy, Thomas W.
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cape, Thomas
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)


Cleary, J. J.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Thorne, William James


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Tinker, John Joseph


Cove, William G.
Lawson, John James
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah


Daggar, George
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick



Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Logan, David Gilbert
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lunn, William
Mr. John and Mr. Paling.

9.14 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I beg to move, in page 7, line 41, at the end, to insert:
Provided that it shall be the duty of the Governor-General, in exercising his functions with respect to defence, to make provision for the progressive Indianisation of the defence forces with a view to the completion of this process within a period not exceeding thirty years, and thenceforth the Governor-General's function with respect to defence shall be exercised by him acting with his ministers, and the special responsibility of the Governor-General in the exercise of his functions with respect to the prevention of any grave menace to the peace or tranquility of India, or any part thereof, shall cease and determine.
Nearly every hon. Gentleman who has moved an Amendment on this Bill has commenced his speech by declaring that his Amendment is the most important of all on the Paper. However true that may be, I think that I may lay claim that the Amendment I have moved is indeed of first-class importance to this Measure. If hon. Members will be good enough to look at the Amendment, I think that they will agree that it can be put very shortly thus. It is a proposal to Indianise all the defence forces of India within a period of 30 years either from the passing of this Measure or the date upon which its provisions are to be implemented. That does not appear to be a very revolutionary proposal, because 30 years is a long time and many things may happen before then. It is no use claiming that the Indian people are ever to get self-determination, the power to control their own affairs, until they achieve that stage in their history when they are in a position to defend their country and the frontiers around it. Therefore, I regard the proposal in the Amendment as of the essence of the policy which we have propounded on this side of the House ever since this Bill came before Parliament. Carrying the point a stage further, I would say that you cannot have self-government in any country if its defence forces are in foreign hands. We want to be quite plain about that. This proposal is, as stated, part and parcel of our policy, which aims in the end towards Dominion status in India.
This Amendment, of course, cuts across the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee. I have a criticism to make against the Joint Select Committee in this connection, because they turned down any suggestion of a time limit
for the Indianisation of the defence forces of that great sub-continent. The White Paper contained a suggestion that what we are now proposing might be capable of achievement within 20 or 25 years. I think I am right in putting it that way. If hon. Members are doubtful on the point I will read the paragraph, but before doing that I will read paragraph 180, in order to show the attitude of mind of the Joint Select Committee on this issue. It is headed "The practical difficulties of the Indianisation of the defence forces of India":
It is sometimes said that so long as the officer ranks of the Indian Army are not fully Indianised complete self-determination must be indefinitely deferred. We do not regard that view as self-evident, and indeed the problem of Indianisation does not appear to us to be essentially related to the constitutional issues with which we are concerned.
I want to be a little critical of that attitude of mind. Imagine a body of men declaring that you can have self-government in a country and still retain the defence force of that country in the hands of a foreign nation. What would anybody say to-day of governing Canada, or Australia, or South Africa by forces sent from this country?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Who defends them but the British Navy?

Mr. DAVIES: The hon. and learned Gentleman and I have had a few difficulties to contend with elsewhere and I am not going to be drawn into an argument with him on this issue. He is always very eloquent against me, especially when we are dealing with drink problems in Committees upstairs. Therefore, I will stick to my last, if he will allow me. Now I come to the point on which I think there was some doubt in the minds of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. In paragraph 181 this is what the Joint Select Committee say:
We think it right to mention these things because of the suggestion put forward in the British-India Joint Memorandum that there should be a definite programme of Indianisation with reference to a time limit of 20 or 25 years.
It will be noted that that suggestion was made in the British-India Joint Memorandum, and not, as I previously stated. The idea has been floating about in this country and in India for a long period, that a day would come in the history of India when she would demand, and in
my view, rightly demand, that she should within a period of time be capable of training her own soldiers and teaching the technique of defence to her own officers, and in the end be capable of handling her defence entirely on her own account. I know that that proposal will not commend itself to some hon. Members on the other side of the Committee: I will tell them why they adopt that attitude. It is because of the spirit of imperialism that imbues them and causes them to think that they are of better clay than anybody else, that they have been gifted by nature or by some supreme spirit with superior intelligence and power, and that they therefore should control the destinies of the millions of the people of India. I want to say quite frankly, and I am now speaking on my own behalf, that unless the proposal that we are now making is adopted and the Indian people are given the right to produce their own officers for their own Army, the day will come when they will not ask the British Government for that right, but will take it. That stage has been reached in many countries in the past, and I do not think that the Indians are much different from any other nation in that respect.
I am fortified in the proposal that I am making because the Joint Select Committee suggested that the time would arise in five years from the passing of the Act for inquiring into the possibility of the Indianisation of the police service and the civil service of India. If such a proposal is good enough in respect of the police and the civil service in India, it ought to be good enough in respect of the defence forces of India. As I understand the position it is this, that we have 60,000 soldiers from this country in India, and they are officered exclusively by people from this country. There are over 140,000 men in the Indian Army, which is almost exclusively an Indian Army, and in the main it is officered by people from this country. Let hon. Members see how anomalous the position is. The Indians in their own country are officered by British officers, but no Indian, so far as I know, has ever been allowed to secure a captaincy or even a sergeant-majorship in the British forces in India. [Laughter.] An hon. Member laughs. If he were an Indian I know what he would do. [HON. MEMBERS:
"What would you do?"] I represent Westhoughton, and I am pleased to say that the vast majority of Westhoughton people believe in the gospel that I am now preaching. They have chosen me six times because of that.
We are, therefore, moving this Amendment in the hope that the Government will accept it. Indeed, we are not without hope that even the group led by the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) may follow us into the Division Lobby on this occasion. I do not know whether the Noble Lady (Duchess of Atholl) will stand up and support this Amendment. We shall see what will happen very shortly. I am informed that the two qualifications required of Indian officers for the Indian section of the Army are efficiency and experience. I am informed, too, that in 1918 the doors were opened just a little for a commencement of the Indianising of the officer ranks of the Indian Army, and that there has been an increase recently in the number of Indian officers appointed. I know that this policy will take time. I am not an authority on military matters, and I am proud not to be, but I understand that it takes about 20 or 25 years for some of these men to reach the higher grades in the officer class. This process of Indianisation has already commenced, and what we are trying to do by this Amendment is to carry it a stage further. I wish to say finally that I think the principle holds good and that we ought to rely more and more for the defence of India on the people who reside there. We ought to provide all the facilities we can in order that the Indian people, in the end and within the period we lay down, may be capable of looking after the defence of India themselves.

9.28 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: I must assure the hon. Member who has just spoken that we none of us regard ourselves as superior people and "better clay than other people" and that we really do approach this question with a great measure of sympathy for the Indian point of view. Every Member of the Committee must remember these two facts: first, that India provides almost the whole of the money for the British and Indian Army in India; and, secondly, that India has made great sacrifices both of lives and of
money in Imperial defence. It is not, therefore, to be wondered at that almost every Indian takes an intense interest in this question. The difficulty is—and I hope to put the difficulty before the House very shortly—to have anything in the nature of a time-table. After all, the only test you can apply to defence is the test of efficiency. It is no good embarking upon a system of defence that is not going to defend your country, and it is quite impossible to state times and seasons as to the attainment of that kind of efficiency. After all, India is in a very vulnerable position. In her own interests India cannot afford to take risks. There are few territories in any part of the world more vulnerable to foreign attack than India if her defence is not efficient. We have to accept that fact, and, in accepting that, we have to hold a, balance between on the one hand encouraging in every legitimate way the Indianisation of the garrison of India, and on the other hand the maintenance of the efficiency of Indian defence.
In these matters of defence, let me assure the hon. Member one has to act with a considerable measure of caution. I had the privilege of being for seven years 'at the head of one of the Defence Departments, and I think the lesson that most impressed itself on my mind was the vital part that morale plays in any system of efficient defence. If, unwisely, you take action that endangers the morale of any fighting Service, the efficiency of that Service is apt to collapse with a most alarming rapidity. So with that lesson in mind and also with the continuing necessity to meet the legitimate aspirations of Indians, I say to the Committee that it is impossible to set times and seasons to this process of Indianisation. What we can do is to embark with all sympathy upon the experiment—and since I have been associated with Indian affairs we have greatly extended that experiment. We have started a Sandhurst for the training of these Indian officers, and I am glad to be able to tell the Committee that the young Indians who have entered the Indian Sandhurst are, in the view of the Commander-in-Chief, showing great promise. I think that may be a very fruitful source of development in the future.
We have to give this experiment the fairest and freest possible run. We are
now making it over a wide field, extending to all the Arms in India and to sections of the Army that in former years were denied to Indian units and Indian officers. We have embarked on this experiment with great good will, the Commander-in-Chief himself is very sympathetic to it, and we hope it is going to succeed. The more it succeeds the quicker will be the development of Indianisation. But more than that we cannot say. We cannot say that in a period of x years, in 20, 30, or 40 years or whatever it may be, this process is going to succeed or is going to be 'complete. What we can say is that we will give the experiment every reasonable chance of success. We will show it our sympathy, we will give it our help, and we hope that it will succeed. More than that we cannot say, and as we cannot say more than that, I cannot accept the hon. Member's Amendment.

9.35 p.m.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I have listened to the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) to-day as I have on more than one occasion with a great deal of sympathy, and I cannot forget that the Hammer of Scotland also did his level best to exterminate the Welsh. He said that he was not acquainted with military matters. That was very obvious. No doubt during the War he was profoundly grateful that there were a large number of other people who were prepared to take up a military occupation. I was myself; and I have no doubt that Indians will be only too glad for the great boon we are conferring upon them in sending 60,000 British troops to look after their safety. I see no reason why we should suddenly interfere with the process at present in operation and set up a time limit.
The people who are making the trouble against the British Government are the Bengalese. We do not recruit a single soldier from them. The only people from whom we get soldiers for the Indian Army are the hill tribes, who are somewhat like our Scottish Highlanders. These are the classes who will be recruited, and I question whether the tribes of the plain, who have nothing to do with military matters would welcome their army being in the hands of officers from the hill tribes. The only thing which keeps together the various tribes in India is the fact that the ruling class there is the impartial British officer, and that is why
the British Army and the Indian soldier, with British officers, fulfils his part so splendidly. If you are going to take military sections and put them in charge of Indians, you will not get the same results; and no one will resent it more than the Indians themselves. I am told that in regiments having Indian officers the rank and file are not nearly so satisfied as they are in those in which you find British officers and British noncommissioned officers in charge.

9.39 p.m.

Mr. LANSBURY: In 1922, that is 13 years ago, Lord Rawlinson, the Commander-in-Chief in India, appointed a committee, which was presided over by his chief of staff, to consider this question, and they recommended 42 years as the period during which the force should be Indianised. On further consideration they submitted a shorter period of 30 years, which was unanimously accepted by the Government of India as then constituted, including Lord Rawlinson and the Viceroy, Lord Reading. I am not an expert on military matters, so the hon. and learned Member and I are on an equality as far as that is concerned, but I should have thought that Lord Rawlinson would have been considered a Conservative authority on a matter of this kind. He was backed up by the Viceroy and I suppose by the advisers of the Viceroy of that day, and he saw no difficulty in meeting the difficulties which the Secretary of State has now put forward—namely, that you cannot, for several reasons he gave, fix a period. The committee appointed in 1922, speaking with authority, did put a time limit, which they fixed at 30 years. I happen to know that when that committee was appointed there was great hope that this business would at last take a real turn and that efforts would be made to establish such an organisation in India as would enable Indians to learn the technique of the business of defence, and that by now they would have been well on the way towards securing the training which would allow them to command their own Indian forces.
A rather audible smile went round the Committee just now when my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) called attention to the fact that it was considered altogether wrong that Indian officers should be trained to con-
trol British soldiers. I am not aware that any one at this time of day will call in question, certainly not the Secretary of State, the courage, the bravery and the endurance of the ordinary Indian soldier. He has proved his worth as a soldier on many a field in defence of the British Empire, especially in the Great War. I never shall forget those passages in the life of the late Lord Birkenhead in which he recalls his tremendous appreciation of the work done by Indian troops in Europe. If there must be armies in a place like India, I feel that we ought, once and for all, to go back on the old doctrine laid down so long ago that it is a little unsafe to leave Indians in real control of armaments because they learn rather too quickly how to use them. The Committee know my views about this question, but, if we are going to start them on the road to self government, if our aim is ultimately to allow them to run their own country, surely we ought to make up our minds as to the period during which it will be considered necessary that this training should take place.
I do not believe that the ordinary young Indian of the same class as those from whom the officer class of this country is trained, is inferior in intellect to ourselves. They go to Oxford and Cam-and to other universities, and attain distinction just as our own people. I also deny that it is necessary there should be this class distinction in regard to officers. Some of the best officers in the British Army have come from the ranks. That has been proved on many occasions. I say that because of the rather scornful interjection, or rather laughter, which followed a statement of my hon. Friend. An important question is involved here, and that is the question of cost. The cost of British troops is considerably higher than the cost of Indian troops, and this is a vital consideration in a country where the people are as poor as they are in India. During these discussions on several occasions attention has been called to the poverty of the people of India. From these poverty-stricken people the cost of Indian Government will have to come, and this age long cost of British troops must also come. The other day I was challenged on this subject and was told that the expenditure was not out of proportion. Here is the answer to that statement. We have heard a great deal of the Statutory Com-
mission. If anyone chooses to look at page 216 of the Commission's report he will see, under the heading, "Expenditure on Defence," this statement in paragraph 248:
An outstanding feature of this summary is the high proportion (62½ per cent.) which current expenditure on defence bears to the total expenditure of the Central Government—a higher proportion in fact than in any other country in the world … It is more significant that, even when account is taken of provincial and central expenditure together, the ratio (31½ per cent.) is still a very high one. This ratio is high in part because other kinds of expenditure are low. India has a comparatively small unproductive debt, while many forms of Government service are very little developed.
Then the Commission's report says later:
Her expenditure on armaments is between two and three times as great as that of the whole of the rest of the Empire outside Great Britain. Again, the total is not only high in itself and as compared with other countries, but it has also greatly increased as compared with the pre-war situation. India, in fact, has not obtained any relief from the greater sense of world security which has succeeded the world War.
The Statutory Commission gave figures to show that while armaments expenditure in Great Britain increased by 48.9 per cent. between 1913 and 1928, the increase in India was 100 per cent., and they point out that the total is at present double both absolutely and in relation to the revenues of India, and a dominating factor of the financial situation. It is said that no one in India wants to get rid of the British soldier. That may be true, but the Statutory Commission in their Report point out that this expenditure on defence is, economically speaking, the most burdensome form of expenditure, and this is particularly the case where, as in the case of India, the Army contains a large element drawn from elsewhere. These figures, coupled with the report of Lord Rawlinson's Committee, are the conclusive argument why our Amendment should be adopted. Thirty years is the period mentioned.

Wing-Commander JAMES: Is the right hon. Gentleman not, quite unintentionally, misleading the Committee I The Rawlinson Committee in recommending Indianisation within a specified period referred not to the whole Army but to the Indianisation of certain specified units in a certain time.

Mr. LANSBURY: I think the hon. and gallant Member will find that the specified units are very considerable. I would not have stood here and said what I did say if the work had been started. But let any one, let the Minister, stand up and tell me how many officers have been trained since that report, and let us know what steps have been taken to bring about an Indianisation of the Army. The right hon. Gentleman throws over an essential portion of the Rawlinson Committee's Report, and that is the recommendation that Indianisation should be 'concluded in thirty years. [HON. MEMBERS: "If possible."] Yes, if possible. The committee first recommended a period of 42 years, but on further consideration submitted a shorter period of 30 years, "which was unanimously accepted by the Government of India as then constituted, including Lord Rawlinson and the Viceroy, Lord Reading." I do not mind any one putting in the words "if possible." That would mean that an effort is to be made to Indianise the Army. If some period other than 30 years would appeal to this Committee we would be quite agreeable to consider it.
We object to leaving the question as it were in the air—"we shall do what we can," and so on. The Indians, as the late Lord Lytton said, are continually having the word of promise broken both in the spirit and in the letter when it comes to carrying out that word. I think the Secretary of State Hill remember that statement of the late Lord Lytton, which appeared in a despatch to the then Secretary for India. Our point is that there is nothing definite in the Government's attitude towards this question. We wanted to fix down, first, that the House of Commons really desires the Indianisation of the Army of defence in India, and hopes that the authorities in India will take the necessary steps for bringing that about. I conclude by saying that I profoundly and entirely disagree with the theory that the great Indian nation is incapable of producing the organising ability necessary for the development of its own forces of defence.

9.54 p.m.

Sir A. KNOX: Perhaps I may say a few words on this subject as I spent many years in the Indian Army and know something about it. On one point
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, and that is on the question of saving money. Personally, I think it would be far better to save money by disbanding units instead of Indianising. I do not think you will get any fighting spirit out of the units that you are Indianising now, though I know that in that the Secretary of State will not agree with me. He was a member of a sub-committee of the second Round Table Conference, presided over by the Secretary of State for the Dominions, which recommended that the rate of Indianisation should be increased; secondly, that the British forces in India should be reduced as much as possible; and, thirdly, that every caste, whether martial or not, should be enlisted in India—a proposal which would be absolutely futile. I believe the British officers in the Indian Army are the backbone of the whole concern. If we sacrifice them now we ruin the Indian Army.
Apparently the official Opposition think that we should remain 30 years more in India and then scuttle. Mr. Gandhi says that a few villages on the frontier might be burnt. He does not care about that. He does not live on the frontier. India has never defended itself since the beginning of time. It has been conquered by nation after nation and tribe after tribe till the British went there. We have defended it and built up this wonderful organisation of 159,000 Indian troops who are helping our 60,000 British troops to defend it. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment complained that we were not prepared to put Indian officers over British soldiers. Has he ever seen a British soldier who would submit to that? How is he in touch with the classes that he professes to represent? We are different races, and they would never agree to it. I totally disbelieve the idea that the Indians as a mass want this. The Indian soldiers who fought for us in the Great War and did splendid deeds are not the people who are clamouring for this. It is a different class who did not stir a finger to help us.

9.56 p.m.

Mr. PALING: If I understood the tenour of the speech of the Secretary of State, his whole objection to the Amendment was based on the fact that it con
tained a time-table. Does he object to the other part of the Amendment which lays it down that the Governor-General shall be responsible for the progressive Indianisation of the Army? If the Governor-General could carry this business out in less than 30 years, is he in agreement that it should be done? In order to carry the idea still further he suggested that they were themselves in favour of Indianisation in so far that they had already established a college for the training of officers, and the Commander-in-Chief had said that the young Indians who were being trained there were making very good officers indeed, so much so that it was intended to extend it to all the arms in the Army. Do I understand that, if this success continues, there will be progressive facilities given to these Indian young men to become officers and that they will take the place of British officers who are now there? If they further continue to show success, will they be allowed in the end to displace British officers altogether?

9.59 p.m.

Mr. DONNER: Is the hon. Member aware that at present we recruit twenty battalions of Gurkhas from Nepal, and that, as far as I know, they are not prepared to serve except under British officers?

Mr. PALING: If the hon. Member asks me that, I do not know. I have heard all these statements made and contradicted, and I cannot believe that, if there are efficient Indian officers, they will not serve under them.

10.0 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: Before coming to the hon. Member's questions, may I say two or three sentences in answer to the Leader of the Opposition? First of all, there have been considerable reductions in military expenditure since the time of the Simon Report. Indeed, I go so far as to say that, while maintaining the efficiency of Indian defence, there have been greater proportionate reductions in military expenditure in the last few years than in any other great country in the world. I think that is immensely to the credit of the present Commander-in-Chief. Secondly, as to the conclusions that he drew from the various inquiries that took place in the years after the War, they were not so simple as he appeared to think. For instance, the
later inquiry to which he referred was one rather to see how Indianisation could take place if a definite period were fixed for it. That is a very different kind of inquiry from one into the question whether it was safely possible to make that Indianisation at that period.
Coming to the questions of the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Paling), I can say without any hesitation that the better the experiment goes the quicker will be the Indianisation. I have it definitely in my mind, and so has the Government of India and the Commander-in-Chief, that we shall judge fairly by results and the better the results the more quickly will it come. In the meanwhile the Committee will have observed that we are proposing to put this paragraph into the Instrument of Instruction:

"Seeing that the defence of India must be to an increasing extent the concern of the Indian people, it is our will and intention that our Governor-General should have regard to this Instruction in his administration of the department of defence, notably that he shall bear in mind the desirability of ascertaining the views of his ministers when he has occasion to consider matters relating to the general policy of a appointing Indian officers to our Indian forces or the employment of our Indian forces on service outside India."

That is the outward and visible sign of our good intentions and of the sincerity with which we approach the experiment.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 33; Noes, 221.

Division No. 70.]
AYES.
[10.5 p.m.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lunn, William


Banfield, John William
Edwards, Charles
Mainwaring, William Henry


Batey, Joseph
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Milner, Major James


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Parkinson, John Allen


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks.W. Riding)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Buchanan, George
Groves, Thomas E.
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cape, Thomas
Grundy, Thomas W.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)


Cleary, J. J.
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Thorne, William James


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Tinker, John Joseph


Cove, William G.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George



Daggar, George
Lawson, John James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Logan, David Gilbert
Mr. John and Mr. Paling.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Guest, Capt Rt. Hon. F. E.


Albery, Irving James
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Guy, J. C. Morrison


Alexander, Sir William
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Cranborne, Viscount
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)


Apsley, Lord
Crooke, J. Smedley
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)


Atholl, Duchess of
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Balley, Eric Alfred George
Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Davidson. Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Hornby, Frank


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Davies, Maj. Geo.F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Denville, Alfred
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Dickie, John P.
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Donner, P. W.
Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe)


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Dunglass, Lord
Jesson, Major Thomas E.


Boulton, W. W.
Eden, Rt. Hon, Anthony
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato


Bower, Commander Robert Tatton
Elmley, Viscount
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Ker, J. Campbell


Boyce, H. Leslie
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Kirkpatrick, William M.


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Fermoy, Lord
Knox, Sir Alfred


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks., N ewb'y)
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Leckie, J. A.


Burghley, Lord
Fraser, Captain Sir Ian
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Burnett, John George
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.


Butler, Richard Austen
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Levy, Thomas


Butt, Sir Alfred
Ganzonl, Sir John
Lewis, Oswald


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Liddall, Walter S.


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Lindsay, Noel Ker


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington. E.)
Goff, Sir Park
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Gower, Sir Robert
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J.A. (Birm., W.)
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd. N.)
McCorquodale, M. S.


Clarry, Reginald George
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Colfox, Major William Philip
Greene, William P. C.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Grigg, Sir Edward
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.


Cook, Thomas A.
Grimston, R. V.
McKie, John Hamilton


McLean, Major Sir Alan
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)


McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Ramsbotham, Herwald
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Rankin, Robert
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton


Magnay, Thomas
Ratcliffe, Arthur
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Rathbone, Eleanor
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Rea, Walter Russell
Tate, Mavis Constance


Marsden, Commander Arthur
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Mann, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Mitcheson, G. G.
Remer, John R.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Rickards, George William
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)


Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)
Roes Taylor, Waiter (Woodbridge)
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Munro, Patrick
Rothschild, James A. de
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)
Watt, Major George Steven H.


North, Edward T.
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Wells, Sydney Richard


Nunn, William
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
White, Henry Graham


O'Connor, Terence James
Salmon, Sir Isldore
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Orr Ewing, I. L.
Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney).
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Palmer, Francis Noel
Savery, Samuel Servington
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Patrick, Colin M.
Scone, Lord
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Pearson, William G.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut-Colonel George


Penny, Sir George
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Petherick. M.
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Peto, Geoffrey K.(w'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Womersley, Sir Walter


Pownall, Sir Assheton
Smithers, Sir Waldron
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Radford, E. A.
Somervell, Sir Donald



Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward


Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
and Mr. Blindell-

10.12 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I beg to move, in page 7, line 41, at the end, to insert:
Provided that the functions of the Governor-General with respect to defence shall not be deemed to include, except upon the approval of his Ministers, the power to order the movement of any part of His Majesty's forces in India outside the boundaries thereof unless he is satisfied that such action is necessary for the internal safety of India.
I must apologise for having to inflict myself once more on the Committee, but I can offer the consolation that it will be the last time that I shall do so to-night. The Amendment raises a somewhat different proposition from that which we have just discussed. We have determined in the decision just taken that Indianisation is not to take place except within a given period of time. We know now that the Governor-General is to be in complete control of the army, but there is another issue which we have still to decide, and I venture to tell the Committee that the issue raised in this Amendment is regarded in India with very considerable concern. Indeed, I go further and say that, though we moved in the sense implied by my Amendment on the Joint Select Committee, and it was supported by my colleagues from this side of the House on the Committee, we were also joined in the Division upon the matter by His Grace the Archbishop of
Canterbury and, I am happy to say, one member of the Liberal group on the Committee, so that we had the sanction, not only of the Liberal party, but also to that degree of the Church as well.
What is the point at issue? We assume for the purpose of our argument that the Governor-General will be in complete control of defence so far as India itself is concerned, but then comes the question: supposing an eventuality arise outside the confines of Indian territory, what is to be the extent of the Governor-General's power in that event in relation to the Indian troops which he controls? In our judgment, it is a very big proposition indeed to imply that the Governor-General's power of control over the Indian Army pertains not only to their movements inside Indian territory but also connotes power to move Indian troops outside Indian territory. As things now stand it is possible for the Governor-General to send Indian troops anywhere to any part of the world. It is possible for some eventuality to arise, say, in the Far East, and there is nothing, if this Amendment is not accepted, to prevent the Governor-General from sending a body of Indian troops to take part in any hostilities that may break out. An hon. Friend behind me reminds me that he might even send them to occupy portions of the Rhondda
Valley, but that is not an eventuality which is likely to arise.
I understand there is strong objection among Indian people to this enlargement of the powers of the Governor-General in this sense. If hostilities broke out in the Far East, he would, according to our Amendment, have to determine whether such hostilities involved the safety of India or otherwise, and he could not determine to send Indian troops to engage in such hostilities without first consulting his Indian ministers. The importance of the point may be stated in this way. The Committee will recall the fact, which is not denied, that the Indian people have to bear the financial burden involved in the movement of Indian troops within Indian territory. Is it fair, supposing hostilities broke out in the Far East in relation to an Imperial problem, and not a specifically Indian problem, that India should be called upon to shoulder the burden of her share of the cost of the transference of Indian troops without first enabling the Indian ministers to have a voice in the matter? Suppose that 50,000 Indian troops were sent to Hong Kong. As things are now, I understand, the Indian Budget would have to bear the burden. If that be not so, the position is not as grave as I thought it was, but, in any case, we still maintain the proposition that before Indian troops are sent to various parts of the world to engage in Imperial difficulties it is right and proper that Indian ministers should be consulted by the Governor-General.

10.20 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: This is a difficult question, and the hon. Member had every reason to raise it for the consideration of the Committee. The question is as follows: In the event of Indian troops being used outside India, should their use only be upon the advice of the Indian ministers, or should it be at the discretion of the Governor-General and not on the advice of the Indian ministers? Within that question there is another question. Supposing the troops are being used outside India not for the defence of India but for some Imperial purpose, should a distinction be drawn between that issue and the issue in which Indian troops are used outside India for Indian defence? In the case where Indian troops are used for Indian defence outside India
I do not think there is likely to be any question arising at all. It must be at the discretion of the Governor-General, who is responsible for the reserved Department of Indian Defence. A more difficult issue arises in the event of Indian troops being used outside India for purposes other than the purposes of Indian defence.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: That is the point we raised.

Sir S. HOARE: I know, but I had to put the two points, because they are interconnected, as the hon. Member will see. As to the second case, will the Committee first of all remove from their minds the doubt which arose when the hon. Member was speaking about the cost? There is no question about the cost. The cost will not fall upon Indian revenues at all. In a case of that kind the whole cost would fall upon British revenues. If we used Indian units for a purpose of that kind British revenues would find the money. There is, therefore, no question of cost at all. The question the Committee have to consider is: Should this use of Indian troops be made only upon the advice of Indian ministers?

Mr. JONES: In such a case would British revenues find the pay and the cost of transport?

Sir S. HOARE: The full cost. While the units were being used for this purpose their cost would fall upon British revenues. The question I was putting to the Committee was: Should this be upon the advice of the Indian ministers or at the discretion of the Governor-General? The Joint Select Committee considered the issue, and I think many of us were anxious, if we could, to find a distinction between the two contingencies, but we came to the view that it was impossible to draw a statutory distinction between these two contingencies, and for this reason. If it is accepted that Indian troops can only be used outside India for purposes other than the purposes of Indian defence upon the advice only of an Indian ministry, then we should have to define in the Bill what is meant by "the defence of India," and that is almost an impossible proposition. Obviously "the defence of India "means something much more than holding the North-West Frontier. That be-
ing so, facing the impossibility of making this statutory definition, the Joint Select Committee came to the view—I think, on the whole, rightly—that the decision must in each case be taken by the Governor-General at his discretion, and after consultation with the Federal ministers. I cannot contemplate any single case in which the Governor-General, using troops outside India for purposes other than the defence of India, could possibly ignore the views of his federal ministry. I hope that I have made a rather complicated position clear, and that I have shown the Committee that it is not possible to draw a distinction between those two contingencies.

10.26 p.m.

Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN: The right hon. Gentleman has not met the point under discussion. If India had a right to decide upon her own safety, if she had to decide whether a given course of action would imperil her safety or not, it would be all right. India might take the view that our policy had involved her in peril, and that India's safety would be best served by not allowing her forces to be used for Imperial defence. Take the case of Canada: If we became involved in a war, and if we recruited troops in Canada and if the Canadian Government said: "No, we are not going to be involved, because if we engage in this war we shall be in greater danger than if we stay out of it," Canada would provide no troops. South Africa would be in the same position. I believe that South Africa has said that for South African forces to be regarded as part of the Imperial defence forces might involve more peril than safety to South Africa.
These self-governing Dominions have the right to take their own view of their own safety, but that is being denied to India. It seems as though the Government are saying to India, "We are going to charge the Indian budget with the maintenance of an army necessary not only for order in India but also because it might be part of general Imperial defence." [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] The point which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) was replied to by the Secretary of State, who said that if any troops are taken from India the whole cost falls upon the British Treasury and not upon
India, but if you keep troops in contemplation of using them outside India, surely the maintenance of those troops falls upon the Indian budget. So that in your estimate of the requirements of the Indian Army you take into account not merely the internal safety of India, but the part that Indian forces may play in general Imperial defence.

Sir S. HOARE: That is just what we do not do.

Mr. BEVAN: I would like to know what portion of the Indian Army is paid for by the British Treasury as a part of the general conduct of the Imperial forces, and what part falls upon the Indian budget.

Sir S. HOARE: That is raising a very wide issue, which is wider than is actually raised by the Amendment. Let me say to the hon. Member in a sentence that we do not keep an army for this kind of contingency in India; we keep an army to provide for the defence and the internal security of India, and we use Indian troops outside India only in the event of the situation in India making that safe. We do not keep extra units there for Imperial purposes.

Mr. BEVAN: Although we have the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman, he is unable to point to any statutory distinction between Indian troops maintained for the safety of India and Indian troops that may at any moment be used outside India for Imperial defence purposes. If the Governor-General is given power at the instance of the Imperial Parliament to move troops outside India whenever he is so inclined, that power is taken into account in determining the strength of the Imperial defence forces. The right hon. Gentleman says that it is not, but how are we to know that it is not? All that we know is that they are chargeable to the Indian Budget, and they may be moved outside India. What we want is to say that they shall not be moved outside India without the consent of the Indians themselves. The movement of troops in the way that might be contemplated seems to me to be highly undesirable, because very great difficulties sometimes arise. I think it is true that great feeling arose in the Rhineland because the French used black troops; and very grave feeling has arisen in the Asturias in Spain as a consequence of the use of Moors to quell civil disorder.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now getting outside the Amendment. The Amendment would not limit the use of Indian troops outside India; it only says that the consent of Indian Ministers shall be required.

Mr. BEVAN: I was merely making use of an illustration to show that the use of troops in another country was highly undesirable without some definite safeguard that they would not be so used except in very grave circumstances. It seems to me that in asking for this Amendment we are asking for something that is quite reasonable, and, in refusing it, the right hon. Gentleman gives the impression that the Indians are not only not going to be allowed self-government in India, but may be merely used as pawns in an Imperial game which they themselves have no chance of determining.

Lord APSLEY: I am rather perturbed by the statement of the Secretary of State that, if Indian troops were used outside India, it would be the British taxpayer who would have to bear the burden.

Sir S. HOARE: That is the case now.

Lord APSLEY: Now that a constitution is being given to India, it should come to an end—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That question cannot possibly arise on this Amendment. If it arises at all, it arises on Clause 148.

10.34 p.m.

Mr. COCKS: I fancy that the Secretary of State was slightly in error just now. He said that the Joint Select Committee found that they could not make a distinction between the case in which troops were sent out of India for purposes of Indian defence in its widest sense, and the case in which they were sent out of India for purposes altogether unconnected with Indian defence, such as a petty war in Shanghai, which would not involve the defence of India even in its very widest sense. The Committee did make a distinction. They said, in the first place, that they did not recommend that the power of the Governor-General should be
limited in this matter. In the second case, that of Indian troops being sent across the sea for some purpose unconnected with the defence of India, we should not agree to do that without consultation with the Minister.

Sir S. HOARE: I said so.

Mr. COCKS: But of course they did say that the question as to whether the troops were in the one category or the other should be left to the discretion of the Governor-General. We agree with that, because that is what our Amendment states. The Joint Select Committee recommends that in the second case, when it is proposed that Indian troops should be sent out of India for purposes unconnected with the defence of India, the Minister ought to be consulted. Where is that power to be found in the Bill? Does it come within the Instruments of Instructions? I cannot find it in the Bill. I would like the Minister to answer that point. We want to go further. We say that in a case where the defence of India is not involved, not merely should the Minister be consulted but his consent should be given before Indian troops are sent oversea away from the place where they have enlisted and the country which they have enlisted to defend. If they are sent away from India for Imperial purposes not connected, even in the widest sense, with Indian defence it is only reasonable that the consent of Indian Ministers should be granted, and I ask the Goverment to consider that point also.

Sir S. HOARE: I shall answer the hon. Gentleman's question at once by referring him to paragraph XVII of the Instruments of Instructions which provides that the Governor-General:
shall bear in mind the desirability of ascertaining the views of his Ministers when he shall have occasion to consider matters relating to the general policy of appointing Indian officers to Our Indian Forces or the employment of Our Indian Forces on service outside India.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 33; Noes, 207.

Division No. 71.]
AYES.
[10.40 p.m.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Edwards, Charles
Maxton, James


Banfield, John William
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Milner, Major James


Batty, Joseph
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Bevan, Anourin (Ebbw Vale)
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks,W.Riding)
Parkinson, John Allan


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Rathbone, Eleanor


Cape, Thomas
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cleary, J. J.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Tinker, John Joseph


Cove, William G.
Lawson, John James
Wilmot, John


Daggar, George
Logan, David Gilbert



Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Lunn, William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Mainwaring, William Henry
Mr. John and Mr. Paling.




NOES


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
O'Connor, Terence James


Albery, Irving James
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
O'Donovan, Dr. William James


Alexander, Sir William
Goff, Sir Park
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Gower, Sir Robert
Orr Ewing, I. L.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Palmer, Francis Noel


Apsley, Lord
Graves, Marjorie
Patrick, Colin M.


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Greene, William P. C.
Peake, Osbert


Atholl, Duchess of
Grigg, Sir Edward
Pearson, William G.


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Grimston, R. V.
Petherick, M.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Radford, E. A.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Hamilton, Sir R W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Blindell, James
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Boulton, W. W.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Bower, Commander Robert Tatton
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Wallar
Rankin, Robert


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Rea, Walter Russell


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Hornby, Frank
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Brass, Captain Sir William
Howard, Tom Forrest
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks., Newb'y)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Remer, John R.


Burghley, Lord
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Rickards, George William


Burnett, John George
Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe)
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Butler, Richard Austen
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Janner, Barnett
Rothschild, James A. de


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Ker, J. Campbell
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chaster, City)
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Salmon, Sir Isldore


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney).


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.Sir J.A.(Birm., W.)
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Savery, Samuel Servington


Clarry, Reginald George
Leckie, J. A.
Scone, Lord


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Colfox, Major William Philip
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Colman, N. C. D.
Levy, Thomas
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Lewis, Oswald
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Cook, Thomas A.
Liddall, Walter S.
Smithers, Sir Waldron


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)
Somervell, Sir Donald


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Cranborne, Viscount
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Steel Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Crooke, J. Smedley
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C.G.(Partick)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
MacAndrew. Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
McCorquodale, M. S.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Tate, Mavis Constance


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Davison, Sir William Henry
McKie, John Hamilton
Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Denville, Alfred
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Tufnell, Lieut-Commander R. L.


Dickie, John P.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Dunglass, Lord
Magnay, Thomas
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Elmley, Viscount
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Watt, Major George Steven H.


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Wells, Sydney Richard


Emrys- Evans, P. V.
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
White, Henry Graham


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Fermoy, Lord
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Fraser, Captain Sir Ian
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Nall, Sir Joseph
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Womersley, Sir Walter


Ganzonl, Sir John
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid



Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
North, Edward T.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Nunn, William
Sir Frederick Thomson and Lieut-




Colonel Sir A. Lambert-Ward.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. MORGAN JONES: We are not satisfied with the way our Amendments have been dealt with, and we propose to vote against the Clause standing part.

Several HON. MEMBERS: rose—

10.46 p.m.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: May I appeal to the Committee There has been an agreement made to reach a certain point to-night. May we have the Division now?

Mr. LANSBURY: Excuse me. I are not objecting to the Division being taken, but I am objecting to any notion that we are to go on debating until Clause anything.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I did not mean to imply that there had been any suggestion to keep the House up late, but I did want to suggest to the Committee that there had been an agreement to reach some point to-night. If we debate every Clause and every Amendment, we are not going to keep any arrangement.

Mr. LANSBURY: I have heard no protest from the Chair about the prolonged discussion by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who are Members of the party on the other side of the House. To-night, it happens—we cannot help it—that a number of our Amendments are on the Order Paper, but I do not think anyone can charge us with having prolonged discussions on any one of them. Whatever agreement was made it was an agreement that all of us should have a fair and reasonable chance, and I think that any attempt to keep us late to-night on the Amendments that we have to move would be rather unfair.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I hope the right hon. Gentleman did not think that I was making any reflection upon him or his supporters in regard to this matter. I was only saying that I understood there had been an agreement.

Mr. LANSBURY: No.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If I am wrong, then I have been misinformed, and I apologise to the Committee. I understood that there had been an agreement, and I was suggesting that we had
discussed this Clause—I do not say at any undue length—and that I thought we might come to other important points. If the Committee desires further to discuss it, I am in the hands of the Committee.

Mr. LANSBURY: With very great respect, I would point out that there have been certain Amendments moved to this Clause, and that as a rule the party whose Amendments have not been accepted make speeches against the Clause standing part. My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) made no speech against the question, "That the Clause stand part," but simply said that our Amendments had not been dealt with satisfactorily, and that we proposed to take a Division. Then hon. Members on the other side wanted to speak, and it was against the statement that you made then that I protested.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I understood—I may have been mistaken—that the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) who represented the right hon. Gentleman's party was satisfied with the discussion and that he was ready to take a Division on the Question: "That the Clause stand part." I realised that he did not wish to continue the discussion, and I was hoping that other hon. Members would take the same view and not continue the debate.

Mr. LANSBURY: We must be quite clear about this. There is no agreement—no discussed agreement—with us, although there may have been with other people, and it was that suggestion that I resented very strongly indeed.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I only hope the right hon. Gentleman did not think for one moment that I was suggesting that the party which he leads had not kept an agreement. I was given to understand, perhaps mistakenly, that there was an agreement between all parties in the House that we should progress, at any rate to the end of the next Clause, without sitting unduly long. If I was mistaken, I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. I did not suggest that any member of his party had taken an undue share of the proceedings. I hope he did not think that.

Sir S. HOARE: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not feel any sense of
grievance. There was no definite agreement. At the same time, there was a general conversation between the various sections and there was a general wish, shared, I think, by everybody, to get on as far as we can. I do not want to press it further than that, but I hope that we shall get on as far as we can.

10.51 p.m.

Wing-Commander JAMES: The last thing I want to do is to detain the Committee, but I had given notice that I wished to raise a point of substance which, I believe, I cannot raise at a later stage. If I can raise the point later and you, Captain Bourne, will inform me of the fact, I will at once give way. Under this Clause the Governor-General is allowed to appoint three counsellors to assist him in the execution of certain functions. I did not put an Amendment down on the subject, because I knew perfectly well that the Government are open to all reasonable suggestions, and if there is substance in my point, they will at a later stage themselves probably deal with the matter. I do not see how the Governor-General will be able to exercise his special responsibilities in respect of the excluded and partially excluded areas unless there is some central machinery for the purpose. This is not a small problem. The measure of the problem may be judged by the Sixth Schedule to, the Bill which covers a population of something like 13,000,000 people. Further than that, there are at least another 12,000,000 of these primitive tribes who will be the special responsibility of the Governors, and therefore also of the Governor-General, to be dealt with. I very much hope that at a later stage the Government are going to include more of these people in the Sixth Schedule. Whether they are excluded or not does not affect the fact that these people will remain a special responsibility of the Governor-General and I should be grateful if the Secretary of State could indicate what machinery he has in mind whereby-the Governor-General can carry out the responsibilities which I know the Secretary of State wishes him to exercise.

10.53 p.m.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: Unlike hon. Members on the other side who have been trying to whittle down the safeguards regarding defence and the Army, I am concerned far more to ask
for some assurance that the safeguard regarding defence is a real safeguard. There is no question that the whole Bill will be useless, and that any reforms in India will be useless unless the Army, and the British Army particularly, is a real safeguard. You may say what you like, but in the East, even if you do not govern by the sword, it is the Army, and the British Army, that is the power behind the throne. The Joint Select Committee evidently realised that fact, because they comment that under the great Mogul Empire personal rule was very effective, and they refer to the awful position of India when that strong Mogul rule was overthrown. I want to get some assurances on this point, for the defence problem is unlike foreign affairs or ecclesiastical affairs, which are dealt with in this Clause. Those affairs can be transacted on paper, in offices, but when you come to the Army or other defence forces that means much dependence on the good will of Indian ministers. If posts, telegraphs, wireless and the police are interfered with it means that the Army is no safeguard. It cannot be moved unless Indian ministers are in touch with the Commander-in-Chief and the Viceroy. I do not think it is realised by the Government, certainly not by hon. Members opposite, what the British Army is in India for. I am going to read what the Commander-in-Chief said on this subject in the Legislature last July, he has probably done more for Indianisation than any Commander-in-Chief. He said, in defending the Budget estimate of last year:
His business was to provide security principally of the frontiers. That was an Imperial commitment, but it was far more an Indian one and India was still the most tempting bait in the world for invasion. The large majority of the troops, between 30,000 and 40,000, were not kept for war purposes, they were kept for internal security, for the ports, coasts and lines of communication. No other Commander-in-Chief was in the same position. In France and in Germany and in every other country—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not see what this has to do with this Clause?

Brigadier-General BROWN: It is a matter of defence. I am pointing out that if the army loses the power to move you will lose everything, this Bill and everything else. I want to point out the reason why the army is kept for internal
defence. The Commander-in-Chief went on to say:
He would venture in all earnestness to suggest that if Indian politicians would pay less attention to how much Sikhs, Moslems, Hindus and Untouchables were going to get out of this and out of that and more attention to making India into a nation, it would not only be better for their political future but would almost immediately reduce the cost of defence.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I cannot see the relevancy of the argument to the question of the Clause standing part. The hon. and gallant Member must raise it somewhere else in the Bill; this is hardly the occasion for making a, general speech on the army in India.

Brigadier-General BROWN: I want an assurance that the army will be a real safeguard in the circumstances. Indian ministers may do many things to hamper the army, and I think it is absolutely necessary that the Commander-in-Chief should be one of the three counsellors to be appointed, and that he should be kept in touch with Indian ministers and the Government; otherwise, the army will not be the real safeguard it should be. It is useless to reserve defence unless the Viceroy also controls the means of communication right from the ports.

11.0 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: Let me deal, in the first place, with the question of the excluded areas raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Wellingborough (Wing-Commander James), who is a great expert on these matters. The main responsibility will rest not with the Federal Government but with the Provinces. As far as the centre is concerned, the Governor-General can have what staff he requires to deal with it. It may be that he will give a portfolio to one or other of his councillors, but in any case he will have what staff is necessary.

As to my hon. and gallant Friend question about the Army, let me reassure him as far as I can. The Army will be a reserved department, directly under the Governor-General with responsibility to this Parliament, and the Governor-General will have the power of intervening in other Department, for instance if the railway department has trenched upon his special responsibility for defence. I think, therefore, that if my hon. and gallant Friend will look into the question with greater detail he will find that the position is as safe as we can make it. It is also worth noting that throughout these discussions and in the preparation of these proposals we have relied very much on the advice of the Commander-in-Chief, to whom my hon. and gallant Friend himself has paid a well-merited tribute.

11.2 p.m.

Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDEMAN: I was very sorry to hear that you, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, could not call an Amendment in the' name of an hon. Friend, for I am certain that the Government would have accepted it. We wanted to raise the number of councillors from three to six, with the idea of getting one councillor specially appointed to look after the trade interests between this country and India. It is very important that we should have some sort of safeguard. When this Bill goes through, if it ever goes through, we shall be in the position that the fiscal convention will mean as little in the future, or even less, than it has meant in the past, with the people of Lancashire walking in the streets and the people of Ahmenabad drawing dividends. I want to get that put right.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill,"

The Committee divided: Ayes, 186; Noes, 35.

Division No. 72.]
AYES.
[11.4 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)


Albery, Irving James
Boyce, H. Leslie
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)


Alien, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn.Sir J.A.(Birm,, W.)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Brass, Captain Sir William
Clarry, Reginald George


Apsley, Lord
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Colfox, Major William Philip


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Colman, N. C. D.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Burghley, Lord
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Burnett, John George
Cook, Thomas A.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M,
Butler, Richard Austen
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Butt, Sir Alfred
Cranborne, Viscount


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Crooke, J. Smedley


Blindell, James
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Crookshank. Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)


Boulton, W. W.
Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Cruddas, Lieut-Colonel Bernard


Bower, Commander Robert Tatton
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Culverwell, Cyril Tom


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Rathbone, Eleanor


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Leckie, J. A.
Rea, Walter Russell


Denville, Alfred
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Dickie, John P.
Liddall, Walter S.
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Dugldale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Rickards, George William


Eastwood, John Francis
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Elmley, Viscount
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Rothschild, James A. de


Emrys- Evans, P. V.
Lockwood, John C, (Hackney, C.)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Fermoy, Lord
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
McCorquodale, M. S.
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Fraser, Captain Sir Ian
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney).


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Fuller, Captain A. G.
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Savery, Samuel Servington


Ganzonl, Sir John
McKie, John Hamilton
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Smithers, Sir Waldron


Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Somervell, Sir Donald


Goff, Sir Park
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Gower, Sir Robert
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)


Graves, Marjorie
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Grigg, Sir Edward
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Grimston, R. V
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Tate, Mavis Constance


Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Ztl'nd)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)
Morrison, William Shepherd
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
North, Edward T.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Hornby, Frank
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Howard, Tom Forrest
Orr Ewing, I. L.
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Palmer, Francis Noel
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Patrick, Colin M.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Peake, Osbert
Watt, Major George Steven H.


Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Pearson, William G.
Wells, Sydney Richard


Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe)
Petherick. M,
White, Henry Graham


James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Janner, Barnett
Radford, E. A.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Ker, J. Campbell
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)



Kerr, Hamilton W.
Ramsbotham, Herwald
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Kirkpatrick, William M.
Rankin, Robert
Sir George Penny and Sir Walter




Womersley.


NOES.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Maxton, James


Banfield, John William
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Milner, Major James


Batey, Joseph
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks.W. Riding)
Orr Ewing, I. L.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Groves, Thomas E.
Parkinson, John Allen


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Cape, Thomas
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cleary, J. J.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Tinker, John Joseph


Cove, William G.
Lawson, John James
Wilmot, John


Daggar, George
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.



Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Logan, David Gilbert
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lunn, William
Mr. John and Mr. Paling.


Edwards, Charles
Mainwaring, William Henry

11.10 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
I make this Motion in order to invite the Secretary of State to tell us how far he proposes to go to-night. From our point of view, Clause 12 contains problems which we regard as of the very first importance. Probably to no other part of the Bill do we attach more importance than we do to our Amendments on this
Clause. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree—I am not asking him to give us a bouquet—that in presenting our Amendments to-night we have been as brief as the circumstances would justify and have not unduly consumed the time of the Committee, and we have done our best, so long as we were discharging our duty as an Opposition, to facilitate the transaction of public business. I ask the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, having regard to the fact that we attach the greatest importance to Clause 12, to allow
us to take some portion of the Clause, or, rather, to state how far he proposes to go with the Clause before letting us adjourn.

11.12 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: I own that I had hoped we should have got a good deal farther than that. At the same time, there has been no kind of obstruction in any quarter of the Committee, certainly not from the benches opposite. Would it not have been possible to have gone on, say, until a quarter to 12 or 12, and to see how far we could get? I should be very glad if we could. We are already a good deal behind the provisional time-table to which the various sections agreed, and if we could make some further progress to-night, I should be very grateful. At the same time I do not want to press hon. and right hon. Members opposite further than they really can go, nor do I wish to press the Members of any other section of the Committee, but I should be very grateful if we could go on till a quarter to 12.

11.13 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I should be very glad if it were possible to meet the right hon. Gentleman, but he will, I am sure, appreciate that it is an extremely onerous task that falls on, a few of us in this matter. I have no right to speak for others, but we are exceedingly anxious to have ample opportunities to prepare our case in regard to our Amendments on page 473 of the Order Paper, and might I suggest that we should go to the bottom of page 472 to-night, although that covers the right hon. Gentleman's own proposals rather than ours?

11.14 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Like the hon. Gentleman opposite, I have felt a certain amount of anxiety about how we are to get through this great mass of business within the time that we have agreed, and allow proportionate discussion of the salient points, but it seems to me that we need not be too much worried if the six-day limit which was provisionally assigned to the first 45 Clauses of the Bill is not achieved, or even if an eight-day limit is net achieved, because the Committee is working its way into this Bill, a great
many matters are arising which people can see are the real questions at issue, and, on the other hand, a lot of mere machinery will fall into the background and can be relegated to its proper position.
I had hoped we might have got further to-night, but I think the Government would be well advised on the whole not to be unduly alarmed because the progress has not been according to the original schedule. We might go to-night as far as the hon. Gentleman suggests and take the first Amendment to Clause 12. On the whole, it is an important Clause and touches the Lancashire case, and the whole question of the powers of the Governor-General, whether it be, in fact, responsible government or not, and the reaction of that on the attitude of Indian public opinion. If the Government would be content just to break into Clause 12, I do not think they would be getting into a position where the later stages of the discussions of the Bill would be unduly cramped.

Viscount WOLMER: I think we ought to sit until 12 o'clock, because, if we adjourn at 11 o'clock every night, we shall not get our fair share of the 30 days.

11.16 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: I am anxious, if we can, to proceed by general agreement. I cannot possibly fail to respond to the appeal that has been made. As long as we all accept the general position that we are going to get through within the limit of time, we must work by genera] agreement. That being so, we will take the next Amendment, and, when we reach the Amendments in the names of hon. Gentlemen opposite, we will move to report Progress.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 12.—(Special responsibilities of Governor-General.)

11.18 p.m.

Sir FRANCIS FREMANTLE: I beg to move, in page 8, line 7, after "peace". to insert "health".
This Amendment is to provide that the Governor-General shall have special responsibilities for prevention not only of any grave menace to the peace or tranquility of India, but also of any grave menace to health. This is not a ques
tion of the distribution of public health functions, with which we have had to deal elsewhere in the Bill. This is a question of the grave menace to the health of India. In the background of this position we have to remember we are dealing with 5,805,000 deaths in British India in a year, and something like 8,000,000 for the whole of India. Still more, we are dealing with special questions like cholera, the deaths for which number 70,000 in a year, and as many as 700,000 in 1906; and with plague, which causes 47,000 deaths in a year in British India. The number of deaths in the plague epidemic at the beginning of the century was some 9,000,000. We are thus dealing with a tremendous problem. These epidemics are liable to flare up suddenly in any one or more of the Provinces or States, and they run like wildfire across from one to the other. The early beginnings are unseen, and then they get beyond control. There would be no time for the inter-Provincial councils to act as is laid down in Clause 133. It would be a long time before they would be set up. Meanwhile, these grave menaces may occur on the morrow of the Bill coming into force.
The effect is not limited to India. Such a grave menace to India is a grave menace to commence from India and a menace to the world. I should have explained that point but for the appeal which has been made, and I will confine myself to one illustration. India is recognised throughout the health organisations of the world as being a standing menace, and therefore a, grave menace to India is a grave menace to the world. Take this single quotation from the last report of the Public Health Commissioner of the Government of India:
The general opinion held by directors of public health and their staffs was that no provincial health departments in India had even the minimum requirements necessary for the efficient performance of those functions.
If that be so now, under the present administration, what will the position be during the change which undoubtedly is going to shake the administration during the period when this Measure is being put into operation? A sudden and grave menace may flare up at any time; such things are constantly occurring in Oriental countries. I ask the Government to face this problem as if it were
one of war; indeed, it is one of war. Action in these cases has to be taken early and instantly and it has to be comprehensive. This is far more important than the question of tranquillity, which is already provided for in this paragraph. Tranquillity means tranquillity from communal trouble. A disturbance of the tranquillity may result in 200, or 500 or, perhaps, 1,000 deaths. This menace of disease to which I am referring may mean thousands, tens of thousands, even millions of deaths, and the effect be felt throughout the world. Visualised as a military problem, this requires immediate and drastic action. I put this point straight before the Secretary of State. We in the medical profession do not know how this measure is going to act, but we must state the position as we see it. We have no wish to invalidate the Bill; we only wish to strengthen it.

11.23 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Before I address myself to this proposition may I appeal to the Secretary of State to give us the view of the Government? I do not think the debate could proceed satisfactorily without our knowing the reaction of the Government to the proposal submitted by the hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle). The question far transcends the ordinary questions of party politics or non-party politics, or even national affairs: it is concerned with the great warfare of mankind against disease. Here we make a common front against the common foe. I should think that, on the whole, the Government would be very much disposed to include "disease" in the ambit of the Governor-General's powers; but it may be there are objections to it. It may conflict on some of the political theories which underlie the Measure. Our discussion would, I think, be abridged if we proceeded with a knowledge of what is in the mind of the Secretary of State, and with a clear comprehension of what are the purposes of the Government.

11.25 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER: Before the right hon. Gentleman rose, I was intending to make a statement as clearly as I could on the attitude of the Government to this very important Amendment. Before I had the honour of taking up this position, I had the privilege of discussing these points, and the subject is one that we have con
sidered, and which my right hon. Friend has considered during the whole course of his administration. It must be taken for granted as of extreme importance, and no words used by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) or by the hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) are in any way exaggerated. I would draw hon. Member's attention to the present position, and the position as it will be after the operation of this Measure. Public Health is a provincial subject under the Bill, and is to be part of Item 13 in the provincial list on Page 293 of the Bill. Public Health has been one of the transferred subjects for several years, and I would like to pay a tribute to the manner in which Provincial Governments in India have handled the question. I have had the privilege of discussing the matter with many administrators who have had experience of India, and, although it is possible to criticise the administrators of Public Health—and I am perfectly conscious of that—it is undoubtedly one of the subjects to which Indian Ministers have paid most attention and to which they have responded most readily.
The position under the Bill is that Public Health is included in the provincial list. When the Government came to consider the vital question, raised by the hon. Member, about the possible passage of disease with lightning rapidity from one unit of the proposed federation to another they realised, as he did, the urgency and danger of the situation. If hon. Members will turn to concurrent list No. III and will look at Item 29, they will see included there the prevention of the extension from one unit to another of infectious or dangerous diseases affecting man, animals or plants. This was deliberately put in, partly as arising from the discussions of the Joint Select Committee and partly out of the realisation of the Government of the urgency of the question. That means that since this item is in the second part of the concurrent list, it is susceptible of the operation of Clause 125 (2) of the Bill. That means that if the provisions of the Clause operate, the central executive have power of control over the Provinces to the extent that the Clause describes. Therefore, the correlation necessary for dealing with this question is included in the provisions of the Bill. Apart from this possi
bility of legislating in order to provide machinery that deals with this passage of disease, there is also an opportunity under Item 12 in List I, which provides for the setting up and the maintaining of federal agencies or institutes for research, including scientific and medical research. This entry in the federal list, and all that legislation means when it is included in the federal list, gives an opportunity for dealing with scientific and medical research and setting up or maintaining federal agencies or institutes for research.
There remains the aspect of the possibility of inter-provincial co-ordination. Clause 133 refers to the possibility of inter-provincial councils. The Mover of the Amendment said that that sort of machinery was not rapid enough to deal with an emergency of this kind. I have attempted to deal with that point by saying that, by including an entry in the concurrent list, we had given an opportunity for setting up the necessary machinery for that purpose. My hon. Friend has often asked me, when I have discussed these matters with him, what would be the possible future for some central board of health or machinery, to deal with India, as a whole. The first step would be for the Legislature of India to take the opportunity conferred on them by Clause 133, and, if necessary, set up a provincial council under that Clause. From that germ might spring the future health organisation to which my hon. Friend refers, and which I believe he so ardently desires. I have attempted to cover the four aspects of the subject, and to point out that the Government have attempted to deal with them in this Bill; and, as my right hon. Friend asked for a statement of the position, I had better stop there, having done my best to explain the position as we see it under the Bill, without attempting to minimise the very great importance of these matters.

11.33 p.m.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: What the Under-Secretary has said with regard to stopping the spread of epidemics and taking immediate action is very important, and is satisfactory. It is clear that such action can be taken under the item in List 3 to which he referred. I think, however, that some of us would be glad if the provision for health could be more specific, and not merely covered by
the sections dealing generally with scientific research of all kinds and collaboration between provinces. If it were possible to make more specific reference to health, I am sure so many of us would regard it as a great improvement. I would not wish to press that this particular Amendment should be accepted. I think there would be objections to extending the Governors' list of responsibilities if the same object can be attained in another way, possibly either by an extension of Item 29 in the concurrent list, or possibly in the Instrument of Instructions to the Governor-General. But what is wanted is that there should be some, if not guarantee, at any rate some assurance in which we can put confidence, that the office of the Public Health Commissioner, for example, and all the work that he has done, is likely to be continued, and that the existing institutions for research will continue.
Besides the work of stopping epidemics, there is the necessity in a great country like India, for the collation of information gathered from within the country itself and also for the collection and utilisation of information from abroad and of course, conferences such as have been mentioned must be extraordinarily valuable. We would like some assurance that there will be a continuation of the central department and that instead of waiting for this or that Province to take the initiative, the centre will always take the initiative, in order to start the Provinces and keep them in carrying on the work by giving advice as well as in other ways.

11.36 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL: My hon. Friend who moved the Amendment spoke with knowledge of the devastating effect of epidemics in India, and I should like to emphasise the fact that great gatherings of pilgrims from all over India, at certain seasons of the year, make the occurence of epidemics something that is likely to continue unless much more effective steps are taken to standardise public health measures throughout British India, than have so far been taken. The position at present is that there is no standardisation of public health throughout India except in the major ports. In addition to the epidemics which my hon. Friend mentioned, malaria is a terrible scourge. It
has been estimated that about half the population of India suffer from malaria every year and that the disease keeps them from work for an average of six weeks in the year, so that there is a tremendous economic loss from malaria alone. Various types of machinery for dealing with the situation have been mentioned. Reference has been made to the possibility of inter-provincial councils, set up on provincial initiative. That kind of machinery seems likely to produce little result. It will obviously take time to set it up, and in some cases there may be difficulty in getting cooperation between the Provincial Governments on these matters. The Central Government will have no power of initiative, no power to spend anything on getting such a council set up and no power of direction. It can only come into such a council on the invitation of the Provincial Governments.
I am thankful indeed to see in the concurrent list the subject of preventive measures against the spread of infection and disease which means, of course, that the Federal Legislature will have powers in this matter. But there again action may not be speedy and there may be jealousies between the Provincial Governments and the Federal Legislature. I fancy that many powers would have been given to the Federal Legislature with respect to provincial subjects, had it not been for the dislike of one large and important section of opinion in India, to anything of the kind. Therefore it may not be easy to get the Federal Legislature to act promptly or to get the Provincial Governments to cooperate with them and it seems to me to be of great importance that the Governor-General should have the power of initiative in this matter. As we know, the initiative passes to his ministers under one of the clauses which we passed this afternoon. It is important to realise that at this moment the Governor-General has the power, if he chooses to exercise it, to require the passing of any legislation affecting the interests of the people of British India. He has the power to-day to get the Indian Legislature to pass any measure which he considers necessary, not only for the peace and tranquillity of British India but for its interests generally.
Obviously, there can be no interest of the people of British India more vital
than the question of health in a country where there are such tremendous problems of illnesses of various kinds. It is a power which is passing out of the hands of the Governor-General, and one of the reasons why we say that this Measure will be so prejudicial to the masses of India is that it will rule out Governor and Governor-General alike from having any say in anything except the vital matter of the safety of the people. All other interests, particularly this great interest of health, is to be taken completely out of the hands of Governor and Governor-General alike. India has probably greater health problems than any other country in the world, and, unfortunately, is likely to continue to have those problems because of the great assemblies of pilgrims from all over the country. I most earnestly ask the Government to see if they cannot ensure that health remains a responsibility of the Governor-General, even if they cannot accept the Amendment exactly in the form in which it is drafted.

11.41 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I must say that I think the extremely well-expressed and competent speech of the Tinder-Secretary was not at all adequate to the issue before the Committee. He gave a very clear account of the elaborate provisions of the Bill and threaded his way through that labyrinth with every proof of the assiduity and thoroughness with which he has studied its details. But, after all, let us get back to the central fact. We are not now pressing to set up machinery at all; all we are pressing to assert is a principle and a duty. Let me read the words of the Sub-section as it is proposed that it should be amended:
The prevention of any grave menace to the peace, health or tranquillity of India.
Health is probably going to exact a far graver toll of slaughter, casualties of a blind impotent approach, than anything that will happen in the communal riots which will follow the passing of this Bill, and to the peace of India that is a matter formidable in its character. Surely, the Government ought to assert, and allow the House of Commons in this clause to assert, that fact among the supreme reserved responsibilities of the Governor, so as to shield India from any grave menace to its health. It is not very much to ask that it should be put
in here, and in this form. You may say, that all this sort of arrangement with local and Provincial Governments of this and other lands will not work. Everyone knows that when we are dealing with pestilence you want supreme direction. That is what you require. I remember, many years age, living in an Indian city during a hot summer when 40,000 people died of bubonic plague, and the resistance of the population to the necessary measures of the Government was quite marked. It even reached the ears of the European community, the trouble there was in enforcing the necessary provision of feeling under their armpits to see if the tumour had begun to swell and so forth; and in these examinations the greatest trouble was shown. All this rests in the highest mission which the British have in India.
It may be that you will ask how it should be expressed in later Clauses, Certainly we are not saying that the Governor-General is to interfere in every matter affecting the health of the community. He has all the local bodies and other splendid institutions which are dealing with it, and why, you might say, interfere on every occasion?—Certainly not, but this is a supreme ultimate responsibility, just as vital as the defence of India and the maintenance of tranquillity in India, in order to shield enormous masses of the human race from the ravages of pestilence, and from pestilence which may sweep like the black death through the land. And to say that the Governor-General has not that responsibility is, surely, a menace and a grisly hiatus in the scheme which you are putting up for the future government of India. I do not think that it is at all satisfactory. The Secretary of State refuses to deal with the matter. He will not allow it. There is a special adjuration in the Clause as to the matters in which the Governor-General is to interest himself. In 99 cases out of a hundred it would not constitute "a grave menace," but even when there is a grave menace to the teeming population crowded together in circumstances which seem incredible to western experience, you will not arm him with or summon him to the discharge of that duty. You leave it out of the Bill. My Noble Friend has just said that he has the power to-day, bid you take it away from him by the Bill,
which you call reform. You take away from him the right, the power to lift the shield of Britain against sweeping pestilences which may devastate India. You will not even give him the invocation to do the duty, and you call it a constitutional reform Bill.

11.46 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: I find difficulty in dealing with some of my right hon. Friend's arguments. They are so obviously founded upon the fact that he has given so very little study to the Bill. Public health—this is really the essential point—is a Provincial Service. It is a Provincial Service now. Therefore most of the criticisms which my right hon. Friend has just urged might be urged against the present state of affairs. The Governor-General does not intervene in any of these fields now.

Mr. CHURCHILL: But he could.

Sir S. HOARE: Technically, perhaps he could. But what is the good of that? This is really the essence of the whole matter. The great thing in public health is to get the sympathy of the people who are dealing with it on the spot in the Provinces. One of the best features of recent years has been the increased interest of the Indians themselves in such questions, and I am quite sure that if we maintain this kind of technical power of interference, to use my right hon. Friend's own words—

Mr. CHURCHILL: They are your words.

Sir S. HOARE: Well, my words. We maintain that technical power of interference, knowing perfectly well that public health is a Provincial Service and that in actual practice the Governor-General will not be able to intervene in the kind of way my right hon. Friend wants. If he did it would turn the Provinces and the provincial public health ministers against the kind of action that he wished them to take. I am sure that this of all the causes in the Bill is the cause in which we have to carry public opinion with us in the Provinces. We are much more likely to carry public opinion with us in the Provinces if we do not attempt to have this kind of imaginary interference which we know in practice is not going to take place.

Mr. CHURCHILL: If we do not allow them to mismanage it they will not try to manage it well.

Sir S. HOARE: The right hon. Gentleman must not make such comments upon my observations. I am assuming that this is one of the services in which there is going to a great deal of agreement in the Provinces and in which there is going to be a great deal of public opinion behind the Provincial Ministers. That being so, it is much better to leave the service essentially a Provincial service, at the same time making provision for central research and for the interest, by all means, of the Federal Government in the general problem, as a whole, particularly in case of epidemics, quarantine at the ports and so on. There, by all means the Federal Government should intervene, but, speaking generally, the desire that we should have in a public health administration can be much better served by frankly admitting that it is a Provincial service. Whilst I have every sympathy with my hon. Friend's intention, I hope he will not press the Amendment, because in actual practice it would not work. I will give him an undertaking to look into the matter to see whether on the lines I have just described, namely, keeping it definitely a Provincial service, at the same time strengthening the central organisation of research, we cannot in some way go a little bit further in the Bill. I cannot give a definite pledge, but I am perfectly willing to look into the question with sympathy.

11.50 p.m.

Sir F. FREMANTLE: The right hon. Gentleman talks about strengthening the federal powers in the matter of research, but that does not deal with the problem of the grave menace. I want to know if he will look into the question of strengthening the federal power with regard to the existing organisation of the Public Health Commissioner. It is not the Governor-General who will act in these emergencies, but the Public Health Commissioner who will exercise those powers of advising the Provinces. You want somebody at the Federal Centre to help to advise these different people in order to bring all these forces into play together and to secure common action. Will the right hon. Gentleman look into that matter and see how far it will be
possible to maintain what is at present the existing real power, which exists in every federation and which is asbolutely essential to the Federation in India?

11.54 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: I will certainly look into the point, but let me suggest to the hon. Member that the most hopeful direction in which to look is in the direction of the provincial public health ministers. Speaking generally, the most hopeful policy is in the direction of getting the public health ministers in the Provinces to meet together regularly and

to discuss Means of dealing with these matters.

Sir F. FREMANTLE: In view of that undertaking I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

HON. MEMBERS: No.

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, certainly not.

Question put, "That the word health ' be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 20; Noes, 145.

Division No. 73.]
AYES.
[11.55 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Alexander, Sir William
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Wells, Sydney Richard


Atholl, Duchess of
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Greene, William P. C.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Bracken, Brendan
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.



Broadbent, Colonel John
Remer, John R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Mr. Donner and Mr. Raikes.


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard





NOES.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Grigg, Sir Edward
Peake, Osbert


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Grimston, R. V.
Petherick, M.


Apsley, Lord
Grundy, Thomas W.
Radford, E. A.


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Harris, Sir Percy
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Banfield, John William
Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Rankin, Robert


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Howard, Tom Forrest
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Blindell, James
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Bossom, A. C.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Boulton, W. W.
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Janner, Barnett
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
John, William
Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney).


Brass, Captain Sir William
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Burghley, Lord
Ker, J. Campbell
Savery, Samuel Servington


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Butler, Richard Austen
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Liddall, Walter S.
Smithers, Sir Waldron


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.Sir J. A.(Birm., W)
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Cleary, J. J.
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Colman, N. C. D.
Logan, David Gilbert
Stones, James


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Mabane, William
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
MacAndraw, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Cranborne, Viscount
McCorguodale. M. S.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Crooke, J. Smedley
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Tate, Mavis Constance


Cruddas, Lieut-Colonel Bernard
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
McKie, John Hamilton
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Daggar, George
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Mainwaring, William Henry
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Dugdals, Captain Thomas Lionel
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Eastwood, John Francis
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Edwards, Charles
Milner, Major James
Watt, Major George Steven H.


Elmley, Viscount
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Whiteside, Borres Noel H.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Wilmot, John


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertl'd)


Fraser, Captain Sir Ian
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
North, Edward T.
Womersley, Sir Walter


Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Nunn, William



Goff, Sir Park
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Gower, Sir Robert
Orr Ewing, I. L.
Sir Frederick Thomson and Major


Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Paling, Wilfred
George Davies.


Graves, Marjorie
Patrick, Colin M.

Ordered, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

—[Captain Margesson.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — WESTERN AUSTRALIA.

Ordered,
That the Lords Message [26th February] relating to the appointment of a Committee to consider the Petition of the State of Western Australia be now considered."—[Sir F. Thomson.]

Lords Mesage considered accordingly.

Ordered,
That a Select Committee of Three Members be appointed to join with the Committee appointed by the Lords to consider the Petition of the State of Western Australia for a Bill to effectuate the withdrawal of the people of Western Australia from the Federal Commonwealth of Australia, and to report whether the same is proper to be received."—[Sir F. Thomson.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

Committee nominated of Mr. Amery, Mr. Isaac Foot, and Mr. Lunn.

Ordered,
That the Committee have leave to hear Counsel to such extent as they shall see fit, and have power to send for persons, papers, and records.

Ordered,
That Two be the quorum.

Ordered,
That the Petition of the people of the State of Western Australia, presented to the House on the 17th day of December last, be referred to the Committee; and that they do report upon the advisability of its reception by the House."—[Sir F. Thomson.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Thursday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at four minutes after Twelve o'Clock.